2018 (3) TMI 1148 - HC - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Crude Palm Oil of Edible Grade in bulk - classification under Chapter Heading 15111000 of the Customs Tariff Act or otherwise - Whether the N/N. 46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 is applicable to the present facts of the case? - Held that - the amended Act 28 of 2016 has come into force with effect from 14.05.2016. It is trite law that any amendment to the Statute is prospective unless it i s explicitly made retrospective. It is not disputed by the Revenue that this amendment is prospective. Such being the position, the provisions of Section 25(4) as it stood prior to 14.05.2016 shall be made applicable to the facts on hand. If so, the two conditions contemplated under Section 25(4) of the Act has to be satisfied for the notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Act to come into force. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PARAM INDUSTRIES LTD 2015 (6) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT , whereby the Hon ble Apex Court while considering the identical issue as observed that two conditions are mandatory for bringing the notification under Section 25(1) of the Act into force and make it effective viz., (1). Notification should be published in the official gazette; and (2). It should be offered for sale on the date of its issue by Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi - it is held that notification may eve n though published on the date when the copies were cleared, it was not justified and lawful on the part of the department to claim the differential amount of duty on the basis of the said notification. Demand not justified - No claim of differential amount of duty can be made on the basis of the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015, and the same deserves to be set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demands made by respondents for higher duty rate at 12.5% for clearance of goods, legality of notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015, applicability of said notification to imported goods, violation of natural justice in issuing revised demand.

Analysis:
1. Demand for Higher Duty Rate: The petitioner contested the demands made by the respondents for a higher duty rate of 12.5% for clearing the imported goods. The petitioner argued that the revised demand was issued without providing any opportunity and contended that the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015, which increased the duty rate, was not applicable to the subject goods.

2. Applicability of Notification: The key contention revolved around the applicability of the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 to the imported goods. The petitioner argued that the notification did not come into force on the date of import, as required by Section 25(4) of the Customs Act. The petitioner relied on the requirement that notifications must be published in the official gazette and offered for sale on the date of issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi, which was not met in this case.

3. Legal Interpretation: The court analyzed Section 25(4) of the Act and noted that any amendment to the statute is prospective unless explicitly made retrospective. The court highlighted that the conditions under Section 25(4) prior to the amendment by Finance Act No.28 of 2016 were applicable in this case. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the conditions for a notification to become effective, citing a relevant judgment to support its interpretation.

4. Judicial Precedents: The court distinguished the judgment cited by the respondent's counsel, emphasizing that the context and legal provisions were different in that case. The court relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to support its decision that the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015 was not applicable to the imported goods in question. The court concluded that the demand made by the department was not justified, and no differential duty amount could be claimed based on the said notification.

5. Final Decision: Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the demands made by the respondents at Annexures-W, X, Y, and Z. The petitioner was held liable to pay duty at 7.5% based on a different notification, and no differential amount of duty could be claimed based on the notification No.46/2015-Cus dated 17.09.2015. The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and relevant judicial precedents.