1990 (8) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals against common impugned order
- Refund of duty on black pepper export
- Notification No. 147/85 and Notification No. 148/85-Cus
- Effective date of publication of notifications
- Appellants' awareness of notifications
- Evidence of notification availability
- Legal position on notification publication date
- Duty payment based on notifications
- Lack of evidence supporting appellants' defense

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals challenging a common impugned order regarding the refund of duty on black pepper exports. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Export), Cochin had passed original orders, upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The dispute arose from Notification No. 147/85 and Notification No. 148/85-Cus, both dated 7-5-85, withdrawing exemption from export duty on black pepper. The appellants argued that the notifications were not in force on 7-5-85 as they were made available to the public much later. However, their claims were rejected at the adjudication level and on appeal.

The appellants contended that the duty was not leviable as the notifications rescinding the earlier exemption and imposing export duty were not applicable due to delayed public availability. They cited a case to support their argument that notifications come into effect only when made available to the public. The Respondent argued that the notifications were published on 7-5-85 and were available to the public, questioning the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claim of delayed availability.

The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and noted the legal position that notifications in the Official Gazette come into effect upon public availability. Despite the appellants' argument, there was no evidence indicating delayed availability. The appellants themselves filed shipping bills on 7-5-85 and 9-5-85, paying duty based on the notifications, indicating their awareness. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' contentions and upheld the impugned order, rejecting all four appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the decision based on the timely public availability of the notifications and the appellants' actions indicating awareness and compliance with the duty payment requirements.