9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of the date of removal of goods from a bonded warehouse for the purpose of customs duty calculation. 2. Application of the rate of auxiliary duty on goods removed from the warehouse before and after an increase in duty rate. 3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents in determining the date of removal of goods for customs duty assessment. Analysis: Issue 1: Determination of the date of removal of goods from a bonded warehouse The case involved a dispute regarding the date of removal of goods from a bonded warehouse for customs duty calculation. The appellant company claimed that the goods were handed over by the Warehouse-keeper to the importer before the date of an increase in auxiliary duty rate. The Customs Inspector's endorsement directing delivery to the importer was dated before the duty increase. The lower appellate authority relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prakash Cotton Mills, emphasizing that the act of importation in India includes territorial waters, and any delay in delivery is irrelevant for duty rate determination. Issue 2: Application of the rate of auxiliary duty The department issued demands for differential duty due to an increase in auxiliary duty rate after the goods were removed. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demands, and the lower appellate authority upheld the decision. The appellant argued that the date of delivery by the Warehouse-keeper should be considered as the date of removal, citing the Calcutta High Court's decision in Titagarh Jute Factory. The appellant distinguished the facts from the Prakash Cotton Mills case, where duty was sought after the duty increase. Issue 3: Interpretation of legal provisions and precedents The appellant contended that the date of delivery by the Warehouse-keeper should be the date of removal for duty calculation. The department argued that the date in the warehouse register, 21-12-1982, was relevant. The Tribunal found that most packages were delivered before the duty increase, and only two after, applying the old and new duty rates respectively. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual delivery date by the Warehouse-keeper determined the duty rate, not the warehouse register date. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, ruling that the date of removal of goods from the warehouse should be based on the actual delivery date by the Warehouse-keeper to the importer. The Tribunal differentiated between packages delivered before and after the duty rate increase, applying the respective duty rates accordingly.
|
