1988 (12) TMI 124 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Notification dated 6th October 1986 regarding additional or auxiliary duty of customs to the imported goods.
2. Legislative competence and constitutional validity of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act.
3. Determination of the taxable event for customs duty on imported goods.
4. Relevance of the date of Bill of Entry presentation in relation to the taxable event.
5. Entitlement to exemption from additional and auxiliary duties based on the date of importation.
6. Proper presentation and acceptance of the Bill of Entry.
7. Refund of excess duty paid due to withdrawal of exemption notifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Notification dated 6th October 1986:
The court examined whether the Notification dated 6th October 1986, which levied additional or auxiliary duty of customs, applied to the goods imported by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the goods were imported before this notification came into effect, thus they should not be subject to the additional duties.

2. Legislative Competence and Constitutional Validity of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act:
The petitioners challenged the legislative competence of Parliament to enact Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, claiming it was ultra vires the Constitution, particularly Article 14. They argued that the duty payable should be based on the rate prevailing when the goods entered the territorial waters of India, not when the Bill of Entry was presented.

3. Determination of the Taxable Event for Customs Duty:
The court deliberated on when the importation is considered complete for the purpose of levying customs duty. It referred to the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Apar Private Ltd., which held that importation occurs when goods enter the territorial waters of India, making them chargeable to duty at that point.

4. Relevance of the Date of Bill of Entry Presentation:
The petitioners contended that the date of presenting the Bill of Entry is irrelevant to the taxable event, which is the importation itself. The respondents, however, argued that the duty should be based on the date the Bill of Entry was properly presented and accepted.

5. Entitlement to Exemption from Additional and Auxiliary Duties:
The petitioners argued that since the goods were exempt from additional and auxiliary duties when they entered the territorial waters of India, no such duties were payable. They relied on the principle that the exemption in force at the time of importation should apply, regardless of subsequent changes.

6. Proper Presentation and Acceptance of the Bill of Entry:
The respondents claimed that the Bill of Entry was not properly presented on 3rd October 1986 because the import manifest did not include the petitioner's name. The court noted that the Bill of Entry was indeed presented on 3rd October 1986, and any issues with the manifest were resolved by the supplementary manifest filed on 6th October 1986.

7. Refund of Excess Duty Paid:
The petitioners sought a refund of the excess duty paid due to the withdrawal of exemption notifications. The court directed the respondents to reassess the duty based on the rate applicable on the date the goods entered the territorial waters and to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioners, with interest if the refund was delayed.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the importation was complete when the goods entered the territorial waters of India on 2nd October 1986. Thus, the petitioners were entitled to the exemptions available on that date. The assessment made on 7th October 1986 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reassess the duty and refund the excess amount paid by the petitioners.