9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs duty notification 2. Validity of duty increase notification 3. Requirement of publication for notification to be enforceable 4. Impact of duty increase on fundamental rights 5. Relevance of Bill of Entry presentation date for duty determination Analysis: 1. The petitioners imported Turkish Chick Peas and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance, claiming duty at 10%. However, a notification increased duty to 35%, which the petitioners contested as illegal due to lack of availability of the gazette notification on time. 2. The Respondents produced the gazetted copy of the notification, citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case where the mode of publication prescribed by the Customs Act was deemed compliant. The Court rejected the argument that lack of availability in Bombay rendered the notification inoperative. 3. The Court emphasized that publication in the Official Gazette was sufficient for the notification to be enforceable, citing previous judgments. It also dismissed the argument that the sudden duty increase violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, stating that excessiveness of tax alone does not breach fundamental rights. 4. Referring to a previous case, the Court reiterated the importance of the date of entry inwards of the vessel for determining duty rates. The Court held that the date of entry inwards recorded in the Customs register is crucial for duty calculation, dismissing the petition based on the Supreme Court's established law. 5. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, discharged the rule with no costs, and vacated the interim relief granted earlier. The judgment underscores the significance of publication in the Official Gazette for the enforceability of notifications and the relevance of the vessel's entry inwards date for duty determination.
|
