1990 (8) TMI 275 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against common impugned order in appeal No. C.Cus. 362 to 365/86 dated 16-7-1986
- Refund of duty on exported black pepper due to Notification No. 147/85 and Notification No. 148/85-Customs
- Date of publication of notifications in the Official Gazette
- Applicability of new rate of export duty on black pepper exports
- Knowledge of the notifications by the exporters before export

Analysis:
The judgment involves four appeals challenging a common impugned order regarding the refund of duty on black pepper exports following the issuance of Notification No. 147/85 and Notification No. 148/85-Customs. The appellants exported black pepper to the U.S.A. in May 1985 and subsequently sought duty refunds, claiming that the notifications were not in force on the date of export as they were made available to the public much later. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims, leading to appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

The main contention raised by the appellants' counsel was that the notifications rescinding the earlier duty exemption and imposing a new duty rate were not applicable in their case as they were not aware of these notifications before exporting the black pepper. Citing legal precedents, the counsel argued that notifications published in the Official Gazette come into effect only when made available to the public. However, the JDR for the respondent contended that the notifications were published and made available on the same date, challenging the appellants to provide evidence supporting their claim of delayed public availability.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the facts of the case. It acknowledged the notifications' content, the export dates, and duty payments made by the appellants in accordance with the new duty rate specified in the notifications. The Tribunal noted the legal principle that Official Gazette notifications become effective upon public availability. Despite the appellants' claims of delayed public knowledge, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this assertion. The appellants' actions of filing shipping bills and paying duties as per the new rate on the same dates as export indicated their awareness of the notifications.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appellants' claims for duty refunds. The judgment emphasized the lack of substantiated evidence supporting the appellants' argument of delayed public availability of the notifications, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were aware of the duty changes at the time of export.