2001 (9) TMI 110 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 3-8-2001.
2. Date of publication and enforcement of the notification.
3. Assessment and payment of differential duty.
4. Applicability of Section 14(2) and Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Relevant date for determining duty liability under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Interim directions for the release of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 3-8-2001:
The petitioners sought a writ declaring the notification as null and void, arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. They argued that the notification was not published in the Official Gazette on 3-8-2001, as required under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and thus could not be enforced against them for the purpose of paying differential duty.

2. Date of Publication and Enforcement of the Notification:
The petitioners contended that the notification was published and made available for sale only on 6-8-2001. Therefore, they argued that the notification could not be applied retroactively to their bills of entry filed on 2-8-2001 and 3-8-2001. The respondents, however, produced evidence showing that the notification was indeed published in the Official Gazette on 3-8-2001. The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Others v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj was cited, which held that the date of the Gazette is the date of publication of the notification.

3. Assessment and Payment of Differential Duty:
The petitioners argued that their bills of entry were assessed for duty before the notification came into effect. They claimed that the notification, which came into force on 6-8-2001, could not be applied to their goods. The respondents countered that the notification was effective from 3-8-2001, and as the entry inwards of the vessel was on 5-8-2001, the petitioners were liable to pay the differential duty as per the notification.

4. Applicability of Section 14(2) and Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioners emphasized that Section 14(2) requires the notification to be published in the Official Gazette, and Section 25(4) states that the notification comes into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication. The respondents argued that the notification was valid and enforceable from 3-8-2001, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Ganesh Das Bhojraj case.

5. Relevant Date for Determining Duty Liability under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioners relied on Section 15(1) to argue that the duty applicable should be based on the date of filing the bill of entry. The respondents pointed out that, according to the proviso to Section 15(1), if a bill of entry is presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel, the bill of entry is deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. Since the entry inwards was on 5-8-2001, the notification dated 3-8-2001 was applicable.

6. Interim Directions for the Release of Goods:
The Court considered the balance of convenience and issued interim directions allowing the petitioners to remove the goods subject to certain conditions:
1. Payment of 25% of the differential duty.
2. Furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the differential duty.
3. Furnishing personal bonds for the remaining 25% of the differential duty.

The Court directed the respondents to release the goods immediately upon compliance with these conditions.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the notification dated 3-8-2001 was valid and enforceable from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. The petitioners were liable to pay the differential duty as per the notification, given that the entry inwards of the vessel was on 5-8-2001. The interim directions provided a balanced approach, allowing the release of goods while ensuring compliance with the duty payment requirements.