9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality and legality of Circular No. 40 of 2001-Cus. 2. Applicability of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 17 of 2001-Cus. 3. Requirement of end-use certification for concessional duty benefits. 4. Validity of provisional assessment and the role of Sec. 151A of the Customs Act. Summary Constitutionality and Legality of Circular No. 40 of 2001-Cus. The petitioners challenged Circular No. 40 of 2001-Cus., dated 13-7-2001, as unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and the provisions of Sec. 151A of the Customs Act, 1962, and Notification No. 17 of 2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001. The court held that the circular cannot override the notification issued u/s 25(1) of the Customs Act, which has the force of statutory levy. The circular was found to be contrary to the notification and thus quashed. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Duty under Notification No. 17 of 2001-Cus. The petitioners sought assessment of imported goods at a concessional rate of 35% duty as per Entry No. 29 of Notification No. 17 of 2001-Cus. The court noted that the notification did not prescribe any condition for the said entry, and thus, the circular imposing such conditions was invalid. The goods were directed to be assessed at the concessional rate as per the notification. Requirement of End-Use Certification for Concessional Duty Benefits The circular required importers to produce an end-use certificate for claiming concessional duty benefits. The court held that such a requirement could not be imposed by a circular if not specified in the notification. The imposition of end-use conditions by the circular was deemed to be an overreach of administrative authority and hence invalid. Validity of Provisional Assessment and Role of Sec. 151A of the Customs Act The court examined whether the provisional assessment pending end-use verification was permissible. It concluded that once the taxable event of importation occurs, the charge is fastened, and assessment cannot depend on future contingencies. The court also clarified that Sec. 151A allows for instructions for uniformity in classification and levy but does not permit modifying statutory notifications. Conclusion The court quashed Circular No. 40 of 2001-Cus. and the consequential order dated 20-7-2001, directing the respondents to assess the goods as per Entry No. 29 of Notification No. 17 of 2001-Cus., and to cancel the bonds and release the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. A stay on the operation of the judgment was denied.
|
