1982 (8) TMI 64 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the exemption notification dated October 11, 1958.
2. Determination of the applicable rate of customs duty.
3. Validity of the interlocutory orders restraining the Central Government and directing the refund of customs duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Exemption Notification Dated October 11, 1958:

The first issue pertains to whether the ocean-going vessel is exempt from customs duty under the notification dated October 11, 1958. The notification exempts ocean-going vessels from customs duty unless they are subsequently broken up, in which case they become chargeable with the duty as if they were imported to be broken up. The court observed, "The proviso unmistakably refers to an ocean-going vessel subsequently broken up." Therefore, the exemption is not absolute and is limited to the period the vessel is used as an ocean-going vessel. The court concluded that the vessel, once broken up, is liable for customs duty, rejecting the petitioner's argument that no duty is leviable because the vessel was not initially imported for breaking up.

2. Determination of the Applicable Rate of Customs Duty:

The second issue concerns the rate of customs duty applicable to the vessel. The petitioner contended that the rate of duty in force at the time of the vessel's importation in 1963 should apply. Conversely, the Customs Authorities argued that the rate in force on the date the Bill of Entry was noted (April 25, 1981) should apply. The court clarified that the statement of particulars filed by the petitioner was misdescribed as a "Bill of Entry" and emphasized that "Section 15(1) read with Section 46 of the Customs Act makes it abundantly clear that the statement of particulars that was filed by the petitioner has been misdescribed as 'Bill of Entry' by the Customs Authorities." The court held that the relevant date for calculating customs duty is the date of importation of the vessel in 1963, as indicated by the proviso to the exemption notification. Thus, the duty rate applicable in 1963 should be used for calculation.

3. Validity of the Interlocutory Orders Restraining the Central Government and Directing the Refund of Customs Duty:

The third issue involves the interlocutory orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The first order restrained the Central Government from proceeding with a revision case against the petitioner, and the second order directed the Customs Authorities to refund a sum of Rs. 35,98,428/- plus Rs. 2,91,000/- upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The court noted that the additional sum of Rs. 2,91,000/- was included within the total sum of Rs. 35,98,428/- and that the direction for its refund was a mistake. The court held that the Customs Authorities should refund to the petitioner the amount paid in excess of the duty calculated at the rate prevalent in 1963. The impugned order of the Appellate Collector of Customs was quashed, and appropriate writs were issued to enforce this decision.

Conclusion:

The court made the Rule absolute to the extent that the Customs Authorities are directed to refund to the petitioner the excess amount paid, calculated at the customs duty rate prevalent in 1963. The appeal and the application for an interim order were deemed disposed of by this judgment. The court also denied the oral prayer for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court, stating, "no substantial question of law of general importance is involved in the Rule Nisi."