1990 (5) TMI 41 - HC - Customs

Precedents - Customs duty - Taxable event - Appeal - Dismissal of - Costs - Award to respondents

Summary

Issues:
1. Drafting errors in the memo of appeal filed by the Union of India and the Asstt. Collector of Customs.
2. Incorrect date mentioned in ground (e) of the memo of appeal.
3. Incoherent drafting in various grounds of the memo of appeal.
4. Discrepancy in the duty amount mentioned in ground (j).
5. Consideration of the Full Bench decision in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.
6. Lack of bona fides in the belated filing of the appeal.
7. Imposition of costs on the Appellants.

Analysis:
1. The judgment highlights numerous drafting errors in the memo of appeal filed by the Union of India and the Asstt. Collector of Customs. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of drafting, pointing out errors such as the use of the term 'blank' instead of 'blanket' and inconsistencies in various grounds of the memo.

2. Ground (e) of the memo contained an incorrect date (28th March instead of 20th March), leading to confusion regarding the admission of facts by the respondents. The court noted that the drafting errors raised doubts about the accuracy and integrity of the memo's content.

3. The judgment criticized the overall incoherent drafting of the memo of appeal, highlighting specific sentences that made no sense or were hastily put together. The court pointed out that such shabby work on behalf of the Union of India was unacceptable and indicated a lack of professionalism.

4. Ground (j) mentioned a duty amount of Rs. 16 lakhs, indicating a significant discrepancy in the value of the shipments. The court emphasized that despite the substantial amount involved, the errors in the memo undermined the credibility of the appeal.

5. The court extensively discussed the Full Bench decision in Apar Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which was considered binding on the single Judge and the court. The decision clarified the relevant point in time for attracting customs duty concerning imported goods entering India's territorial waters.

6. The judgment raised concerns about the belated filing of the appeal and the lack of bona fides on the part of the appellants. Despite the poorly drafted memo, the court dismissed the appeal based on the correctness of the single Judge's decision and the binding nature of the Full Bench decision.

7. Costs amounting to Rs. 1,000 were imposed on the appellants as a condition precedent for further proceedings in the Writ Petition. The court justified the costs considering the vacation filing of the appeal and the need to ensure compliance with the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding professionalism and integrity in legal proceedings, especially when representing the Union of India.