1986 (2) TMI 57 - SC - Customs

Bill of entry Determination of rate of duty Interpretation Scope of Explanation - Import of goods Rate of duty

Issues Involved:
1. Rate of import duty applicable to the goods.
2. Interpretation of unamended Sections 37 and 86 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
3. Impact of the Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955 on the determination of the rate of duty.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order a refund of money.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rate of Import Duty Applicable to the Goods:
The central issue was determining the correct rate of import duty on the consignments of betelnuts imported by the contesting respondents. The respondents claimed a refund of excess duty paid, arguing that they were liable to pay duty at the reduced rate of 12 annas per lb. rather than the earlier rate of one rupee per lb. The customs authorities rejected this claim, leading to the legal dispute.

2. Interpretation of Unamended Sections 37 and 86 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878:
The appeals were argued based on the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, prior to its amendment by Act XXI of 1955. The interpretation of Sections 37 and 86 was crucial. Section 86 allowed the delivery of a bill of entry to the Customs Collector by the owner of the goods "on the landing thereof from the importing ship." The Collector could not accept the bill of entry before the landing of the goods. Section 37 specified that the rate of duty applicable would be the rate in force "on the date on which the bill of entry thereof is delivered to the Customs Collector under Section 86." The Explanation to Section 37 created a fiction that the presentation to the proper officer of Customs would be deemed to be delivery to the Customs Collector. However, the bill of entry could be delivered under Section 86 only upon the landing of the goods. Therefore, the date of the landing of the goods was deemed to be the date of delivery of the bill of entry to the Customs Collector, and the rate of duty chargeable was the rate in force on that date.

3. Impact of the Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955 on the Determination of the Rate of Duty:
The Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955, amended Sections 37 and 86, allowing the bill of entry to be delivered to the Customs Collector after the delivery of the manifest by the master of the importing vessel. Explanation (b) to the amended Section 37 stated that a bill of entry delivered in anticipation of the arrival of the vessel would be deemed to be delivered on the date on which the order for inward entry is passed. Although it was suggested that the landing of the goods was completed on May 7, 1955, and thus the bills of entry were not effectively delivered while the unamended Act was in force, the Court decided the appeals based on the unamended Act. The case was argued on that footing alone, and the Court was not inclined to entertain new points raised by the appellant. The respondents were thus liable to pay the reduced duty of 12 annas per lb.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to Order a Refund of Money:
One of the questions before the High Court was whether it had the power to order a refund of money under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court answered this question in the affirmative, and the correctness of this finding was not challenged before the Supreme Court.

Separate Judgment by Hidayatullah, J.:
Justice Hidayatullah dissented, arguing that the duty should be calculated based on the date the bill of entry was first presented to the proper officer of Customs, which was April 26, 1955, when the rate of duty was one rupee per lb. He emphasized that the explanation to Section 37 should be read on its own terms and not be altered by Section 86. He concluded that the rate of duty applicable was the rate in force on April 26 or 27, 1955, and the respondents were not entitled to a refund.

Conclusion:
In accordance with the majority judgments, the appeals were dismissed, and the contesting respondents were entitled to the refund of the excess duty paid. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the contesting respondents.

← Previous Next →