9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igated woollen synthetic rags and one of pre-mutilated fumigated woollen rags. These goods which were consigned from USA, came to be transhipped at Keelung port and loaded in m.v. ARKOSTAR for Bombay. On receiving the advance set of shipping documents, the appellants first filed the B/E which was registered by the Import Department of Bombay Custom House as 03393 dated 8-1-1987. This B/E is for clearance of 20,000 kgs. of completely pre-mutilated fumigated woollen rags covered by invoice No. 86724 dated 2-10-1986 from the suppliers. The aforesaid B/E, however, was not noted in the manifest and certain objections were raised pointing out the differences in line number and also description of the consignment as woollen synthetic rags complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s presented on 8-1-1987 and the entry was granted on 10-1-1987 and accordingly he ordered that 10-1-1987 will be considered to be the date of presentation of the B/E in terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 for purposes of assessment. 3. Shri Deshpande, on behalf of the appellants took us through the relevant original Bs/E as also the invoices and pointed out that the B/E No. 03393 dated 8-1-1987 was filed for .clearance of completely pre-mutilated fumigated woollen rags contained in 39 bales weighing 20,000 kgs. covered by invoice No. 86724 dated 2-10-1986. They had not filed any B/E for clearance of Woollen synthetic rags which was the item sought to be cleared under the B/E No. 004514 dated 11-3-1987, which is under objection. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... woollen rags. He also submitted that they have only imported three consignments as follows: - (1) 39 bales weighing 20,000 kgs pre-mutilated fumigated woollen rags covered by invoice No. 86274 dated 2-10-86; (2) 39 bales weighing 20,958 kgs completely pre-mutilated fumigated old woollen synthetic rags covered by invoice No. 86725 dated 18-10-1986; and (3) 39 bales weighing 19,094 kgs old synthetic rags complete pre-mutilated and fumigated covered by invoice No. 86753 dated 11-11-1986. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the Addl. Collector is required to be set aside and direction should be issued for admitting the B/E, bearing No. 04514 dated 11-3-1987 for purpose of clearance of 39 bales weighing 20,958 kgs. completely pre-m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same invoice number quoting the correct L. Number as 148 was filed under Import Department registration No. 07477 dated 19-2-1987 and the same has been accepted and processed by the department. In the context of this factual position, it is evident on perusal of the records including the original Bs/E referred to above, we are satisfied that what was sought to be cleared under the B/E dated 8-1-1987 was only 39 bales weighing 20,000 kgs of completely pre-mutilated woollen rags covered by invoice No. 86274. We also observe that the B/E No. 004514 dated 11-3-1987 in respect of which objection has been raised and which is the subject-matter of the present appeal, is for clearance of 39 bales weighing 20,958 kgs of completely pre-mutilated an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot followed in this case and since the duty has fallen down in the budget presented on 28-2-1987, the importer seeks to claim the benefit by stating that the subsequent presentation should be considered as presentation in terms of Section 46 of the Customs Act. Finally he decides that the B/E has already been filed on 8-1-1987, and the date of presentation is determined as 10-1-1987, since the entry in hands was given on that date and that crucial date decided by him is the relevant date for purpose of Sec. 15 of the Customs Act. 6. After carefully going through the findings of the Addl. Collector, we observe that the Addl. Collector has gone right from the beginning on the wrong premise on facts. He has not looked into or discussed as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered under No. 04514 by the Import Department. 7. Shri Mondal also cited the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 401 (Bom.) in the case of Chowgule Co. Pvt. Ltd. In that case the B/E was filed in a wrong form and the importer was advised to file the B/E in the correct form. The Bombay High Court held that the B/E should be deemed to be filed at the earlier date. He contended that this judgment is applicable in the present case also. 8. We have carefully considered this judgment. In that judgment the item sought to be cleared was the same one in the case of both the Bs/E. Here, on the factual position as discussed by us, the B/E presented 8-1-1987 was for woollen rags covered by invoice No. 86274, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
