1986 (8) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Re-assessment of goods at the rate of duty prevailing on the date of entry into territorial waters of India versus the rate on the date of removal from the warehouse.
2. Applicability of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Distinction between warehousing under Section 49 and Section 60 of the Customs Act.
4. Alleged arbitrary imposition of Countervailing Duty (C.V. duty).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Re-assessment of Goods:
The appellants claimed that the goods should be re-assessed at the rate of duty prevailing on the date they entered the territorial waters of India, rather than the rate on the date of removal from the warehouse. They relied on two Bombay High Court judgments, which held that Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act was inoperative in such cases.

2. Applicability of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act:
The Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the applicability of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. This section stipulates that the rate of duty applicable to warehoused goods is the rate prevailing on the date of their removal from the warehouse. The Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. supported this interpretation, stating, "the rate of duty, rate of exchange and Tariff Valuation applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the warehoused goods are actually removed from the warehouse."

3. Warehousing under Section 49 vs. Section 60:
The appellants argued that the goods were warehoused under Section 49 of the Customs Act and thus should be assessed at the rate prevailing when the bill of entry for home consumption was filed. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were warehoused under Section 60, as evidenced by the execution of a bond and the filing of an into-bond bill of entry. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) were not applicable.

4. Alleged Arbitrary Imposition of C.V. Duty:
The appellants contended that the Countervailing Duty (C.V. duty) was arbitrarily charged, forcing them to warehouse the goods. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the assessment was made by the Collector of Customs and later reversed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Tribunal held that the appellants failed to provide sufficient reasons to consider the Collector's decision as arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming that the rate of duty applicable was the rate prevailing on the date of removal from the warehouse, as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' decisions.