9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ylene quantity of 49.5 metric tonnes could be completed, the appellants, due to urgent need of the material, on 3-1-1990 asked their Customs House Agents to clear 33 metric tonnes out of 49.5 metric tonnes of the goods for home consumption instead of warehousing. Therefore, on 3-1-1990, the Customs House Agents requested the Assistant Collector (Imports) to cancel the 2 Bills of Entry for warehousing filed on 29-12-1989 out of the 3 Bills of Entry so as to enable the appellants to file home consumption Bill of Entry in respect of two other consignments. On 4-1-1990, the Assistant Collector, Group II-B, made an endorsement on the Customs House Agents letter of 3-1-1990 to the effect that as there is no change in the rate of duty substitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endation for the conversion on 4-1-1990 when there was no change in the rates of duty. The Additional Collector observed that the Assistant Collector (Imports) was not aware of the fact that duty rates had been changed on 5th of January, 1990. The Additional Collector referred to provisions of Sec. 46(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 which allows the proper officer to permit conversion only when he is satisfied that Revenue is not prejudicially affected and there is no fraudulent intention to defraud Revenue and found that conversion-can-not be allowed when one of these conditions is not satisfied. 2. Appearing for the appellants, Sh. Manoj Sanklecha, Ld. Counsel, contended that the Additional Collector was in error in holding the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nversion under Sec. 46(5) which, in this case, was on 3-1-1990, whereas the Notifications enhancing the rate were issued, subsequently, on 5-1-1990. Hence, the increased rate on this ground cannot be applied to the appellants clearance. On 3-1-1990, there was nothing to prejudice Revenue for allowing conversion. The gazette in which the Notifications 1/90 and 2/90 were published were not available in Bombay till 30-3-1990 according to the appellants. Therefore, the advanced rate cannot be applied to their Bill of Entry which had been filed carrier. 3. Shri S.K. Roy, Ld. S.D.R. appearing for the Department, contended that filing of the Bill of Entry under Sec. 46 is not a vested right. Therefore, the case law cited by the appellants which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Collector s order is without jurisdiction because he has reviewed the quasi-judicial order passed by the Assistant Collector. Examining this question, firstly, it is to be noted that filing of Bill of Entry is not mandatory because Section 46 requires importer to file a Bill of Entry under that Section. Section 48 covers the consequential situation in case of goods not cleared, warehoused or transhipped within two months after unloading. See Bombay High Court decision Chowgule Co. v. U.O.I. -1988 (38) E.L.T. 401. The Department, therefore, under the law need not pursue the importer and compel him to file a Bill of Entry. Therefore, one of the attributes of quasi-judicial decision is absent in the passing of such an order by the Assista ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
