9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Customs Act regarding the calculation of price with reference to the rate of exchange. 2. Application of the second proviso to Section 46(3) of the Customs Act on presenting bills of entry before the delivery of import manifest. 3. Examination of the amendments made by the Customs Act in 1978 and their impact on the presentation of bills of entry. 4. Analysis of the requirement of permission from the Collector for presenting bills of entry under different provisos. 5. Allegation of discrimination by the Customs Department in treating importers differently based on the date of presentation of bills of entry. Analysis: 1. The petitioner contended that the price calculation should be based on the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of presenting the bills of entry, as per the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. This argument was supported by the fact that the bills were presented on 30th March 1992, and there was no defect in them, emphasizing the importance of the date of presentation for rate calculation. 2. The dispute arose from the respondent's argument that permission from the Collector was required for presenting bills of entry on 30th March 1992, affecting the application of the rate of exchange. The petitioner, however, relied on the second proviso to Section 46(3), which allowed presenting bills before the delivery of import manifest if the vessel was expected to arrive within a week, asserting it as a right granted to importers. 3. The judgment delved into the amendments made by the Customs Act in 1978, introducing the second proviso to Section 46(3) and differentiating between imports by vehicle and those by ship or aircraft. The court highlighted the significance of these amendments in understanding the legislative intent behind the provisions related to presenting bills of entry. 4. The court analyzed the requirement of permission from the Collector under different provisos, emphasizing that while the first proviso mandated such permission, the second proviso granted importers the right to present bills before the vessel's arrival without the need for explicit permission. The court rejected the argument that permission was needed in both scenarios, asserting the unconditional right granted by the second proviso. 5. The judgment addressed the discrimination alleged by the petitioner, citing instances where other importers had presented bills earlier and were cleared without issues based on the prevailing exchange rate. The court emphasized the lack of rational basis for treating the petitioner differently and concluded that the Customs Department could not arbitrarily choose to apply different exchange rates for importers based on the date of bill presentation, ruling in favor of the petitioner to prevent discrimination. Overall, the judgment focused on interpreting the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, analyzing the legislative intent behind the amendments, and ensuring fair treatment of importers in terms of exchange rate application, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner to prevent unjust discrimination by the Customs Department.
|
