9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of newly amended rules levying 10% export duty on export of rough granite. 2. Validity of the demand for export duty on consignments cleared before the amendment. 3. Claim for refund of export duty collected. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Newly Amended Rules Levelling 10% Export Duty on Export of Rough Granite: The petitioners argued that the newly amended rules levying 10% export duty on rough granite, effective from 1-3-1992, should not apply to their consignments cleared for export on 11-2-1992. They contended that the change of vessel due to "Draft Problem" should not be considered a fresh export and that the amended rules should apply only to exports made after 1-3-1992. The respondents countered that the petitioners failed to export the goods by the initially scheduled vessel and requested a change of vessel only on 23-3-1992, necessitating reassessment under the new rules effective from 1-3-1992. 2. Validity of the Demand for Export Duty on Consignments Cleared Before the Amendment: The petitioners claimed that the demand for export duty on consignments cleared on 11-2-1992 was arbitrary, against law, and violated principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents maintained that the duty of export should be the rate in force on the date the proper officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation. Since the petitioners resubmitted the shipping documents on 23-3-1992 and export was allowed on 24-3-1992, the duty was correctly levied as per the amended rules effective from 1-3-1992. 3. Claim for Refund of Export Duty Collected: The petitioners sought a refund of Rs. 75,940/- and Rs. 37,414/- collected as export duty, arguing that they were not liable to pay the same under the rules existing on 11-2-1992 when the initial clearance was granted. The respondents argued that the petitioners voluntarily resubmitted the shipping bills with a request to permit shipment by a different vessel and paid the duty on 23-3-1992. As the export took place only on 24-3-1992, the duty was collected as per the law in force on that date, and there was no injustice done to the petitioners. Judgment: The court found that the petitioners failed to load the goods under Customs supervision into the initially scheduled vessel due to the "Draft Problem" and subsequently requested to ship by a different vessel on 23-3-1992. The export took place on 24-3-1992, after the amended rules levying 10% export duty came into effect. As per Section 16(1)(a) of the Customs Act, the rate of duty of export goods is the rate in force on the date the proper officer permits clearance and loading for exportation. The duty was correctly levied and collected as per the amended rules effective from 1-3-1992. The petitioners' contention that they should not be penalized for the delay due to "Draft Problem" was not sustained. The court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to any refund and dismissed both writ petitions for want of merits.
|
