1972 (5) TMI 28 - SC - Customs

Point of time at which rate of duty with respect to the goods imported by the respondent, Dutex Clock Company, from Japan is to be fixed Held that - There is no material on the record on which we can safely accept the appellant s averment in the affidavit in opposition produced in the High Court that the goods in question were provisionally assessed on February 28, 1961 at the before entry or prior entry stage at the rate then prevalent . This averment was wrongly accepted by the learned single Judge and rightly rejected by the Division Bench in view of Ex. 1A. We are also unable to hold as a matter of law that Sections 37 and 57 contemplate the making of a final entry inward after the arriving vessel begins to break bulk. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court is, in our opinion, fully justified both on facts and in law and the appellant has completely failed to point out any error in that order, justifying its reversal by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the point of time for fixing the rate of duty on imported goods.
2. Interpretation of Sections 37 and 57 of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Discrepancy in the delivery date of the bill of entry and its impact on duty assessment.
4. Compliance with formalities for breaking bulk and its relation to duty assessment.
5. Justification of the High Court's decision to allow the appeal and make the rule absolute.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around determining the point of time at which the rate of duty on imported goods should be fixed. The respondent imported steel strips from Japan for manufacturing clocks, and the rate of duty was initially assessed at 10% ad valorem. However, due to a change in the Finance Act, the duty was raised to 50% from March 1, 1961. The dispute arose regarding whether the bill of entry was deemed to be delivered on February 28, 1961, or March 1, 1961, impacting the applicable duty rate.

2. The interpretation of Sections 37 and 57 of the Sea Customs Act played a crucial role in this judgment. Section 37 specifies that the rate of duty applicable to imported goods is determined based on the date the bill of entry is delivered to the Customs Collector. The provision also includes an explanation regarding the deemed delivery date of the bill of entry, which is relevant for this case's resolution.

3. A discrepancy arose concerning the delivery date of the bill of entry and its impact on duty assessment. The single Judge of the Calcutta High Court initially held that the bill of entry should be deemed delivered on March 1, 1961, justifying the revised duty rate of 50%. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision, emphasizing that the bill of entry was dated February 28, 1961, and signed by the Customs Officer on the same day, leading to a different duty assessment.

4. The compliance with formalities for breaking bulk was a critical aspect considered in the judgment. The Division Bench highlighted the necessity of fulfilling all requirements before allowing the breaking of bulk, as outlined in Section 57 of the Act. It was noted that the vessel began breaking bulk before midnight on the night between February 28 and March 1, 1961, raising questions about the proper adherence to procedural formalities.

5. The High Court's decision to allow the appeal and make the rule absolute was justified based on the interpretation of the Sea Customs Act's provisions and the factual circumstances of the case. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the revised duty assessment at 50%, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench's ruling was upheld, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and accurate assessment of duties on imported goods.