9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor of Customs, Appraising Gr. IV dated 11-4-1988. 2. Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants gave the particulars of certain dates in the present case. Originally the appellants filed an into-Bond Bill of Entry on 5-11-1986. This was, however, substituted by an ex-bond Bill of Entry as they needed the goods urgently. The entry inwards for the vessel was granted on 14-11-1986. The goods were examined on 24-11-1986 by the Customs authorities. An order of assessment was passed by the Assistant Collector on 25-11-1986 and the goods were cleared by the appellants on 27-11-1986. 3. On 26-11-1986 the rate of duty on the goods in question had increased and the revised rate of duty meant an additional sum of Rs. 51,142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. In the circumstances, he contended that the department s decision is correct and based on law and the department has a prima facie case. He accordingly opposed the request for stay. 6. The learned JDR also stated that the appellants have not indicated anything by way of their financial position to warrant consideration of the stay on grounds of undue hardship. 7. On this point, Shri Bagaria stated that in view of the prima facie strength of their case, they have not stressed the point. He, however, stated that the importers had already cleared the goods on the basis of the rate of duty indicated in the bill of entry and if the department were to recover the higher rate of duty, at this stage, they would not be in a positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the goods were physically removed from warehouse on 27-11-1987 (sic) and the enhanced rate of duty came into effect on 26-11-1986 and the importers were required to pay higher rate of duty totalling Rs. 51,142.70 paise, as demanded by the Custom House. He had, therefore, held that the order passed by the Assistant Collector is correct in law and rejected the appeal. 9. We are inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that notwithstanding the colour and type of bill of entry or the officers who had handled the processing of the bill of entry and made endorsements thereon relating to warehousing and the passing out of Customs control, the moot point would be whether the goods were cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
