2015 (8) TMI 782 - HC - Customs

Determination of Rate of duty - Effective date of issue of notification - Notification dated 3.8.2001, published date is 6.8.2001 - Valuation of Goods Retrospective effect of Notification Deputy Commissioner assessed goods imported by petitioner on basis of value declared however after issuance of Notification, fixing value at US 372 per metric ton for RBD Palmolein edible oil, petitioner was asked to pay differential duty calculated on basis of said notification Held that - In the case of Param Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India 2002 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , it was observed that, no records have been produced to show the exact date on which notification was published in the Gazette. Annexure-R1 would only reveal that the notification was forwarded to the Manager, Government of India Press to publish the same in the Official Gazette and there is no record further to show that pursuant to the said letter Gazette notification was published on 3-8-2001 itself. But on a perusal, it is clear from Annexure-R1 that the date 6-8-2001 has been overwritten as 3-8-2001 and that apart in the letter sent to the Government of India Press on 3-8-2001 the said overwriting has not been attested or explained in the affidavit. Therefore impugned Notification was notified in official gazette to public only on 06.08.2001, duty becomes payable only from date it was notified in official gazette Hence, impugned demand set aside Petition allowed Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of Tariff value introduced by Notification No.36/2001-Cus (NT) dated 03.08.2001.
2. Retrospective application of the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2001.

Issue 1: Application of Tariff value introduced by Notification No.36/2001-Cus (NT) dated 03.08.2001
The petitioner imported RBD Palmolein edible oil and filed bills of entry for warehousing. The Deputy Commissioner assessed the goods based on the value declared under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. However, a Notification No.36/2001-CUS(NT) was issued on 03.08.2001, fixing the value of the oil at US$ 372 per metric ton under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner demanded a differential duty amounting to &8377; 1,13,11,872, which the petitioner paid under protest. The central issue here was the correct application of the tariff value introduced by the said notification and its impact on the duty payable by the petitioner.

Issue 2: Retrospective application of the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2001
The crux of the matter revolved around the retrospective application of the impugned Notification dated 03.08.2001. The High Court referred to a previous judgment in Param Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India, which addressed a similar notification. The court analyzed the sequence of events regarding the publication of the notification in the official gazette. The court considered conflicting claims about the date of publication and scrutinized evidence presented by both parties. Ultimately, it was established that the notification was only made available for public sale on or after 6-8-2001, indicating that it could not be retrospectively applied to goods imported on 03.08.2001 and 04.08.2001. This issue was crucial in determining the liability of the petitioner to pay the differential duty demanded by the customs authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand letter dated 09.08.2001. The court held that the duty became payable only from the date the notification was officially gazetted, which was on 06.08.2001. As a result, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the duty paid under protest amounting to &8377; 1,09,11,275. The judgment clarified the importance of the official gazette publication date in determining the effective application of customs notifications, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures in imposing duties on imported goods.