9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of customs duty on imported goods, provisional assessment of duty, demand notices for short levy of customs duty, legality of demand notices under Section 39 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioner, a manufacturer of electrical appliances importing goods from England, was liable to pay customs duty on the imported goods as per the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The Act defined the 'real value' of imported goods for duty calculation purposes and required the owner to state the real value, quantity, and description of the goods to the best of their knowledge and belief. The Act provided for provisional assessment of duty under Section 29B in cases where the owner was unable to state the real value precisely or further proof was required. The duty provisionally assessed could be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, with the owner liable to pay any deficiency or entitled to a refund, as applicable. Section 39 of the Act addressed payment of duty not levied, short levied, or erroneously refunded due to various reasons, including misstatement of real value. The Act allowed the Customs-Collector to issue a notice of demand within three months from the relevant date for payment of such duty or charges, with refusal to clear goods until payment. The petitioner received demand notices for short levy of customs duty from the Assistant Collector of Customs, which were challenged as provisional or ad hoc demands not authorized by Section 39 of the Act. The demand notices were issued pending examination of the petitioner's books of account, indicating uncertainty by the Customs authorities regarding the short levy. The High Court held that the demand notices were illegal as the Customs authorities were not satisfied of a specific short levy amount and had not followed the proper procedure. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, issuing a Writ of Mandamus commanding the withdrawal and cancellation of the demands for short levy. The judgment emphasized that the Customs authorities were not entitled to issue demand notices speculating on short levy without concrete evidence, and the petitioner was not trying to avoid duty payment but seeking legal recourse against improper demands. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the petitioner's rights. In conclusion, the High Court found the demand notices for short levy of customs duty to be illegal and ordered their withdrawal and cancellation, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring proper assessment of duties under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
|
