9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 966/81-(D) was disposed by a similar order No. 189/86(D) dated 31-3-1986 again confirming the orders of the lower authorities. However, when the present two appeals were taken up, Shri Rangaswamy, counsel for the appellants, stated that he would like to submit some further arguments. Since the salient aspects of the dispute have already been discussed at length in the Tribunal s previous orders (referred to above), we propose to confine the discussions in this order to the new points urged or arguments submitted. 3. Sri Rangaswamy submits that looking to the sequence of events, the probability is that the vessel Bangla Progati had come into the territorial waters of India off Madras Port. In support of this contention the following circumstances are cited : (a) The ship s Agent had filed with the Madras Custom the import manifest of the ship before the arrival of the vessel; (b) The appellants had filed Bills of entry for assessment of the goods, even prior to the arrival of the goods; (c) The message from the ship s Master would mean only that the ship had entered the territorial waters of India but without calling at Madras Port (the words under reference are not ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia s case AIR 1984 SC 667, that is, if a term has been defined in the enactment, that definition should be taken into account unless expressly provided otherwise. It is further contended that the Government has not challenged the Bombay High Court decision in the Sylvania Laxman s case, 1977, BLR 388, the ratio of which, if applied to the present case, would support the appellant s contention. 6. We would only say, with respect, in reference to the submissions regarding the Madras High Court s judgment in Jamal Co. s case that this Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to address these arguments to in any event, what we have to see is whether the contention of Sri Rangaswamy that the goods entered the territorial waters of India off Madras port before 1.1.79 is acceptable. We have, in our previous order, shown that it is not. 7. In our considered opinion, the decisions taken in similar appeals involving identical issues do not need to be reconsidered by reference to a larger Bench, as prayed for by Sri Rangaswamy. The decisions in all these cases were based primarily on appreciation of the material on record leading to the conclusion that the vessel Banglar Progoti had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded for and cleared at Calcutta. On the contrary, they were transhipped by another vessel to Madras port where that vessel arrived after 1-1-1979 by which time the exemption had already been withdrawn. The facts and circumstances in the present cases are not, therefore, similar to those in the two cases before the Bombay High Court. 9. The next contention of Sri Rangaswamy is that the Tribunal s order No. 189/86-D dated 31-3-1986 does not deal with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the Apar Private Ltd. s [1985 (22) E.L.T. 644 (Bom.)]. We have already set out the ratio of the decision of that case. The problem before us is, however, somewhat more complicated. In the Apar s case the goods were intended to be imported at Bombay and were, in fact, imported, discharged and cleared at Bombay. In the present cases, the goods were, no doubt, meant to be imported at Madras. However, unlike in the Apar s case, the goods did not enter the territorial water off Madras during the currency of the exemption notification. It is true that the goods did enter the territorial waters at Calcutta during the currency of the exemption, but they were not meant to be imported into India at Calcut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y etc. at the port of discharge, all these provisions may become largely redundant. More importantly, suppose a ship carrying goods originally meant for import at an Indian port say, Madras, enters the territorial waters of India but, for reasons of congestion, operation etc, the vessel proceeds to a foreign port without discharging the cargo and returns to Madras port after a couple of months, and in the meanwhile, the exemption notification which was in force on the date of the first entry into the territorial waters is withdrawn and duty is imposed by the time the ship enters the territorial waters on the second occasion, can it be said that the goods having entered the territorial waters on the first occasion, continue to have the exempted status for all time to come irrespective of whether the goods were really and truly imported into India, not merely in the sense of mere entry into the territorial waters, on the first occasion, but in the sense they were discharged for clearance through customs? We think, the answer is an emphatic no. If this be so, in a case such as the one before us, the entry of the goods into the territorial waters at the actual port of unloading for cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
