9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Arbitrary assessment of duty by the customs authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962: The petitioner argued that the assessment order dated 31st December 1971, made by the respondent under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, should be quashed because it was not completed within the six-month period stipulated by Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the notice for levying the duty was not served within the statutory period, making the claim time-barred. The Court examined the applicability of Section 28, which provides that any duty not levied or short-levied must be notified within six months from the relevant date. The Court noted that Section 28 deals with cases where an initial assessment has been made, but subsequent circumstances necessitate further duty levies. The term "when any duty has not been levied" implies situations where an initial nil assessment was made, and later it was found that duty should have been imposed. The Court distinguished the present case from the Madras decision in Pilmen Agents Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, where the assessment was initially nil, and the demand for duty was made after six months. In the present case, no initial assessment was made when the vessel was allowed to leave the port. Instead, the vessel was permitted to leave because the petitioner provided a guarantee that the duty would be paid once assessed. The Court concluded that Section 28 was not applicable because the assessment was conducted under Section 17, which does not prescribe a time limit for completing the assessment. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that the claim was time-barred under Section 28 was rejected. 2. Arbitrary Assessment of Duty by the Customs Authorities: The petitioner also contended that the assessment of duty was arbitrary and should be quashed. The petitioner argued that the duty was assessed without considering the engine log book, which was allegedly submitted to the customs authorities. The Court noted that the customs authorities had requested the petitioner to produce the log book and other relevant documents to ascertain the duty. The petitioner claimed to have submitted the engine log book, but the customs authorities stated that it was not traceable. The customs authorities assessed the duty based on the available information, including the difference between the store lists upon arrival at Calcutta and departure from Cochin. The Court held that the Writ Court should not interfere with the quantum of duty assessed by the customs authorities. The assessment of duty is within the jurisdiction of the customs authorities, who are required to act in accordance with the law. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the assessment was arbitrary. Conclusion: The Court discharged the Rule NISI and dismissed the writ petition. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court granted a stay of the operation of the order for four weeks. Application dismissed.
|
