9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Sea Customs Act regarding the time limit for demanding additional duty. 2. Whether the demand for additional duty made in 1953 is barred by limitation. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 39 of the Sea Customs Act concerning the time limit for demanding additional duty. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in importing goods, had imported coconut oil in 1949 under a licence obtained after the Open General Licence was canceled. The respondents attempted to impose an additional duty of around Rs. 35,000 in 1953, long after the goods were imported and assessed. The critical issue was whether the demand for additional duty made in 1953 was within the prescribed time limit under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 of the Sea Customs Act stipulates that a demand for deficient duty must be made within three months from the date of the first assessment. In this case, the goods were imported and assessed in 1950, and the demand was made in 1953, prima facie beyond the limitation period. The respondents claimed to have issued demand notices in 1950 and 1956, but the court highlighted that mere issuance of demands was insufficient; they must be served to the concerned party within the specified time frame. The court emphasized that a demand cannot be considered made unless it is communicated to the person liable for payment. As the petitioners could not prove that any such demand was served, the court concluded that the demand for additional duty in 1953 was barred by limitation. The judgment also referenced an amendment to Section 39 in 1951, replacing the word 'made' with 'issued.' However, at the relevant time of the case, the requirement was for the demand to be 'made' and served, not just issued. Therefore, the court made the rule absolute, issuing a writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned demand letters and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to enforce the excess duty demand. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the demands for additional duty as barred by limitation and invalid.
|
