2001 (2) TMI 399 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rate of Customs Duty on Imported Aircraft
2. Applicability of Notification No. 42/92
3. Misdeclaration and Payment of Duty
4. Refund Claim and Time-bar
5. Relevant Date for Determining Duty Rate
6. Filing of Bill of Entry and Payment Under Protest
7. Applicability of Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act
8. Applicability of Legal Precedents

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rate of Customs Duty on Imported Aircraft:
The primary issue was determining the rate of customs duty applicable to the Dornier 228 Aircraft imported by the appellants. The aircraft was initially cleared under Rule 58(6) of the Aircraft Rules, 1920, without payment of duty. The appellants later paid the duty in two installments due to a misdeclaration case initiated by the Customs Department.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 42/92:
The appellants claimed a refund based on Notification No. 42/92, asserting that countervailing duty was not leviable. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, stating that the duty rate applicable was the one in force on the date of payment under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act.

3. Misdeclaration and Payment of Duty:
The aircraft was used for Air Taxi Operations, leading to a misdeclaration case. The appellants paid part of the duty on 11-2-1992 and the remaining on 10-3-1992. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the date of the first payment was the relevant date for duty assessment under Section 15(1)(c).

4. Refund Claim and Time-bar:
The refund claim filed on 22-1-1993 was rejected as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the appellants did not protest the duty payment on 11-2-1992. The appellants argued that the challan dated 10-3-1992 showed payment under protest.

5. Relevant Date for Determining Duty Rate:
The appellants contended that the duty rate should be based on the date of the Bill of Entry presentation (25-3-1992). They cited various legal precedents to support that the rate of duty is determined by the Bill of Entry date, not the importation date.

6. Filing of Bill of Entry and Payment Under Protest:
The appellants argued that no specific procedure for payment under protest existed and that the Bill of Entry presentation date should determine the duty rate. They referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. that an assessee need not particularize protest grounds.

7. Applicability of Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act:
The Revenue countered that the case was not a normal import, and Sections 46 and 15 of the Customs Act did not apply. They argued that the duty rate should be based on the first payment date, and the appellants' subsequent Bill of Entry filing was immaterial.

8. Applicability of Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal considered several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Ajanta Offset Packaging Ltd., Apar Pvt. Ltd., and Garden Silk Mills Ltd. The Tribunal held that the import was complete when the aircraft reached the customs barrier and was cleared for home consumption on 28-10-1991. The filing of a subsequent Bill of Entry did not alter this position.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were liable to pay duty as per Rule 58(6)(b) of the Aircraft Rules, similar to the Sarabhai International Ltd. case. The appeal was rejected, affirming the duty assessment based on the date of the first payment.