1987 (10) TMI 55 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment dismissing Writ Petition for mandamus for refund.
2. Assessment completion date and authority of Customs Officer.
3. Interpretation of Sections 15, 17, 30, and 31 of the Customs Act.
4. Grant of entry inwards and liability to pay customs duty.
5. Allegation of discrimination by Customs authorities.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus for refund. The appellant imported goods subject to varying customs duty rates. The Customs Officer assessed duty before the grant of entry inwards, leading to a dispute over the assessment completion date.

2. The crux of the issue revolves around the authority of the Customs Officer to complete the assessment before the grant of entry inwards. The appellant argued that the assessment was finalized on the date of endorsement by the Customs Officer. However, the Court emphasized that assessment can only be completed post entry inwards as per Sections 15 and 31 of the Customs Act.

3. The interpretation of Sections 15, 17, 30, and 31 of the Customs Act was crucial in determining the timeline for duty assessment. The Court highlighted that the rate of duty is ascertained based on the date of entry inwards, not the date of bill of entry presentation. The proviso to Section 15(1) clarifies the significance of the entry inwards date.

4. Regarding the grant of entry inwards and duty liability, the Court clarified that the delay in granting entry inwards does not absolve the importer of duty payment obligations. The availability of berthing accommodation does not impact the importer's duty to pay customs duty as per the prevailing rates.

5. The appellant alleged discrimination by Customs authorities based on a specific case reference. However, the Court found the discrimination claim unsubstantiated as there was no difference in duty payable between the filing date of import manifest and the entry inwards date. The Court emphasized that a single instance of illegality does not justify perpetuating the same in all cases.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment that the Customs Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the assessment before the grant of entry inwards. The Court affirmed the duty liability based on the entry inwards date and rejected the discrimination claim against the Customs authorities.