9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to a notice of demand issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement Group VII and confirmed by order, applicability of customs duty on an imported vessel, interpretation of relevant notifications, jurisdiction of authorities to issue demand notices, and compliance with previous court judgments. Analysis: The writ petition filed by the Shipping Corporation of India challenged a notice of demand issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs regarding customs duty on a vessel imported in 1959. The vessel, an ocean-going vessel, was imported without customs duty in 1959 under an exemption notification. Subsequently, the vessel was sold for scrapping in 1985, and customs duty was assessed and paid based on the value at the time of importation in 1959. However, a notice of demand was issued in 1986 claiming a differential amount of customs duty based on a different classification under the Customs Tariff Act. The petitioner contended that the demand was unjustified, citing a previous court judgment and principles applied in a similar case. In a previous case, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had considered a similar issue regarding the levy of customs duty on an imported vessel. The court held that the rate of duty applicable was that prevailing at the time of the original importation of the vessel, as per the relevant notification. The court distinguished between a Bill of Entry filed at the time of importation and a statement of particulars filed later. The duty payable was determined based on the date of importation, and the court emphasized adherence to the duty prevalent at that time. The judgment also referenced a Supreme Court decision involving the classification of vessels for customs purposes. The Supreme Court clarified that vessels brought to India for specific operations, such as topping up bulk carriers, were considered goods for home consumption and subject to customs duty. However, this decision was deemed irrelevant to the present case involving the importation and subsequent sale of an ocean-going vessel. Ultimately, the court found that the principles established in the previous court judgment applied directly to the case at hand. The assessment and payment of customs duty on the imported vessel were in accordance with the law and previous rulings. Therefore, the demand notice issued in 1986 was deemed without jurisdiction and set aside. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of any excess amount paid, and the respondents were directed to make the refund within a specified timeframe. Costs were not awarded to any party, and all parties were instructed to act on the judgment accordingly.
|
