9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the notification withdrawing import duty concession. 2. Determination of the date of entry inwards for calculating duty payable. 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The petitioner imported aluminum rods with duty concessions, later withdrawn by a notification. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal as ultra vires, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notification and refund excess duty. The court noted the notification's validity from the date of publication and upheld duty collection for consignments filed after its enforcement. However, for consignments filed earlier, the court examined the ship's arrival date to determine duty calculation. 2. The crucial issue was the date of the ship's entry inwards for duty calculation. Conflicting evidence on the ship's arrival date was presented. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, focusing on Section 15, which determines duty calculation based on the bill of entry presentation date and the ship's entry inwards date. The court emphasized the importance of the entry inwards date for tariff valuation and duty payment, ultimately concluding that the ship's actual berthing date should be considered the entry inwards date. 3. The court further delved into Sections 15 and 16 of the Customs Act, drawing parallels between import and export duty calculation procedures. The court highlighted the significance of the entry inwards date for unloading imported goods, as per Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. By referencing historical provisions of the Sea Customs Act 1878, the court reinforced its interpretation that the entry inwards date corresponds to the ship's berthing date, dismissing the writ petition as lacking merit based on the established duty calculation principles within the Customs Act.
|
