1989 (8) TMI 91 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay customs duty at the rate applicable on 28th February 1983 or the increased rate effective from 1st March 1983.
2. Validity of the circular advancing the closing hours on 28th February 1983.
3. Whether the petitioners were prevented from paying warehousing charges and taking delivery due to the actions of the warehouse staff.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability to Pay Customs Duty:
The core issue is whether the petitioners are liable to pay customs duty at the rate prevailing on 28th February 1983 or the increased rate effective from 1st March 1983. The petitioners had paid the customs duty applicable as of 28th February 1983 and completed all formalities except for the payment of warehousing charges. They were present at the warehouse on 28th February 1983 to pay these charges and take delivery of the goods, but were unable to do so due to the warehouse staff's actions. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to clear the consignments at the rate of customs duty paid on 28th February 1983, as they had fulfilled all necessary formalities except for the warehousing charges, which they were prevented from paying due to no fault of their own.

2. Validity of the Circular:
The circular issued on 18th February 1983 by the Bond Department, New Customs House, Bombay, advanced the closing hours for monetary transactions and deliveries on 28th February 1983. The court questioned the legal sanction of this circular, noting that the original circular was not produced, and only a cyclostyled copy was available. The court found no legal basis for the circular, which arbitrarily advanced the closing hours by one hour. The circular was struck down as invalid, reinforcing the petitioners' claim that they were unjustly prevented from paying warehousing charges and taking delivery of their goods.

3. Actions of the Warehouse Staff:
The petitioners claimed that they were present at the warehouse from 9 a.m. on 28th February 1983, ready to pay the warehousing charges and take delivery of their goods. However, due to heavy rush and the staff's inability to cope, they were unable to complete these transactions. The court noted that the staff's inability to handle the rush and the arbitrary advancement of closing hours by one hour were the primary reasons the petitioners could not pay the warehousing charges and take delivery. The court found that the petitioners could not be blamed for this situation and that the responsibility lay with the warehouse staff.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to clear their consignments at the customs duty rate prevailing on 28th February 1983. The circular advancing the closing hours on 28th February 1983 was struck down as invalid. The court ordered that the petitioners be allowed to pay the warehousing charges and take delivery of their goods, with the customs duty deemed to have been paid as of 28th February 1983. The bonds given by the petitioners at the interim stage were discharged, and the rule in all three petitions was made absolute with costs.