9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for refund of duty under Customs Notification 342/76 - Eligibility of goods imported from Spain - Date for determination of rate of duty under Customs Act, 1962 - Interpretation of Section 15 - Date of entry inwards of vessel - Bill of Entry presentation date - Applicability of GATT Notification No. 342/76 - Evidence of vessel entry date - Benefit of concessional rate of duty. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of imported goods from Spain for the benefit of Customs Notification 342/76 and the determination of the rate of duty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants claimed that the goods were entitled to a concessional rate of duty under GATT Notification No. 342/76, effective until 5-2-1987. However, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the proviso to Section 15 of the Customs Act, which determines the date for the rate of duty. The Collector held that the relevant date for duty determination was 6-2-1987, when the vessel was granted entry inwards, and by that time, the Notification No. 342/76 had ceased to be operative. The appellant argued that since the vessel arrived at Madras Port on 6-2-1987 and was given berthing facilities at that time, it must have entered Indian territorial waters on 5-2-1987, making them eligible for the notification benefit until midnight. The appellant also cited a Bombay High Court judgment in support of their argument. However, the revenue contended that the proviso to Section 15 deems the date of Bill of Entry presentation to be the date of vessel entry, which in this case was 6-2-1987. The Tribunal analyzed Section 15 of the Customs Act, which specifies the date for determining the rate of duty and valuation of imported goods. The proviso clarifies that if the Bill of Entry is presented before the vessel's entry inwards, it is deemed to be presented on the date of entry. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Surfactants (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that the date of entry inwards is the date recorded in the Customs register. The appellants failed to provide evidence contradicting the recorded date of vessel arrival. The appellants contended that the rate of duty should be based on the date of Bill of Entry presentation, which was 3-2-1987. However, the Tribunal noted that the entry inward date is certified by the Preventive Officer of Customs and entered in the Inward Entry Register, which the appellants could not dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals, upheld the original order rejecting the refund claim, and dismissed the appeals.
|
