9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962 stipulates presentation of Bill of Entry in the prescribed format before the proper officer for clearance of goods of importation. Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1976 has prescribed the format of the Bill of Entry and vide Regulations 3 thereof Customs Series Form No. 22 is the relevant form for clearance of goods for home consumption. Among the various entries therein, the importer is required to give the total number of packages and weight of the goods, bill of lading number and date, exchange rate, etc. and also subscribe to the declaration prescribed therein. 'It is submitted that the importer herein, presented the bill of entry numbered 29583 but it was noticed that : (a) Gross weight and the number of packages and bill of ladingnumber were not correctly mentioned. As per the original manifest there were 56 packages having a gross weight of 3,56,540 kgs. However, the importer has declared 51 packages having gross weight of 3,38,740 kgs. (b) There was discrepancy with regard to description and exchange rate. [Importer has indicated the exchange rate of US $ Rs. 41/- (instead of Rs. 41.50)]. As per the Board s instructions in F. No. 3.1.68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clerk/NOTER notes the date with initials (in red ink) in the relevant page of the bill of entry proper admittance of the bill of entry takes place, on that (proper) date. For this purpose elaborate procedure to be followed in the import section in admitting the bill of entry, (especially during the budget period) exists in Chapter III of the Departmental Manual Noting of Customs documents in the manifests of the departmental manual. But Commissioner (Appeals) had totally ignored all these above procedural safeguards indicated above, and held that date of acknowledging by the A.C. (Import) is the relevant date. Therefore, the bill of entry could not be considered as having been presented to the proper officer on 1-6-98. 4. We have heard Shri A. Jayachandran, DR for the Revenue and Shri S.S. Radhakrishnan, Counsel for the importer. Ld. DR argued extensively on the basis of the ground which are brought out above. He also produced on report from the Assistant Commissioner s review cell and distinguished the judgment cited by the importer in their grounds of appeal. It is his contention that the citations are distinguishable and that the bill of entry presented by the importer on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had shown 51 packages which was the actual number while the manifest had shown 56 numbers. Therefore, the doubt was clarified by the importer and the Assistant Commissioner had noted the same. Even if it is considered as a mistake in the bill of entry and correction was done even on the basis of this and in light of Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of ACC For Appraisement, Group-II v. Associated Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) The Apex Court had clearly upheld that the correction in the bill of entry relate back to the original date. The finding recorded by the Apex Court is noted : The question involved is what rate of duty was to be charged on the goods imported by the respondent. It is on 3rd October, 1986, when the concessional rate of duty at the rate of 10 per cent was applicable, that the customs authorities on the import manifest filed had granted entry inwards. On that date, the bill of entry had been filed. The bill of entry was subsequently, at the instance of the customs authorities, amended by the steamer agent on 6th October, 1986 by supplementary manifest. On 6th October, 1986 by separate notifications the duty of Customs stood increased to 60 per cent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) 8. [Contra per : Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)]. - I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the order proposed by my ld. Brother, Shri S.L. Peeran, Hon ble Member (J). 9. The Bill of entry has been given running printed sl. number 29583, on 2-6-98 through the numbering machine by the import clerk/noter and the bill of entry has to be treated as filed in the Custom House only when a bill of entry number along with date has been assigned by the Noter in the Import department for noting the bill of entry. It is so because when the Noter notes the date with printed running serial number on the bill of entry through the numbering machine, the bill of entry could be considered as having been presented/filed to the Proper Officer of the Customs Department. In this case, the bill of entry was submitted to the A.C. (Customs) Import Section with the following deficiencies :- (a) Gross weight and the number of packages and bill of lading number were not correctly mentioned. As per the original manifest, there were 56 packages having a gross weight of 3,56,540 kgs. However, the importer has declared 51 packages having gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bill of entry No. 29583, dated 2-6-98 to be deemed to have been presented for in the Import department on 1-6-98 itself under Section 15(1) of the Customs Act and he had no authority to pass the order that no Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs will be chargeable on the goods covered in the above bill of entry since w.e.f. 2-6-98 Special Additional Duty of Customs was levied by the Government in the Budget itself. The fact that the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) Import Section had initialled in the bill of entry does not ipso facto make the bill of entry having been noted and printed serial number with date assigned to them on 1-6-98, which was in fact registered in the Import department on 2-6-98 by assigning the running serial number 29583, dated 2-6-98. It is only on the Budget day the normal procedure is dispensed with and the assistant Commissioner (Import) has to initial the bill of entry. But until and unless the bill of entry is registered and assigned running serial number by the Noter/Import Clerk, the bill of entry cannot be treated as having been filed by the Importer with the Customs Department. The substantive procedure of putting a running serial number alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate becomes relevant and not the date of presentation of incomplete bill of entry to the A.C. Customs (Import), which was not noted in the Import department and was not entered in the Customs records. Further, the bill of entry was returned to the importer because some of the vital details mentioned in the bill of entry did not match the Import General Manifest; gross weight and the number of packages and bill of lading number were also not correctly mentioned in the bill of entry. Even the exchange rate was also wrongly mentioned as US $ @ Rs. 41/- instead of Rs. 41.50. Since all these above details are essential prescribed particulars in the bill of entry, the bill of entry filed on 1-6-98 has to be treated as incomplete and is not deemed to have been presented on that date for the purpose of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. The correct date of presentation of the bill of entry involves the procedure for entry of documents in prescribed statutory register and it is only after the entries are made in the statutory records and the same is given running serial number along with date by the Noter/Import Clerk in the Import department, the filing of bill of entry can be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry No. 29583, dated 2-6-98 . The goods had become exigible to the above duty in the mid-night of 1/2 of June 1998 by virtue of the Provisions of the Budget 1998-99 presented on 1-6-98. The Bill of Entry in question was originally filed with the Assistant Commissioner (Imports) on 1-6-98 but the same was returned for correction of the number and gross weight of the packages and the exchange rate. While so returning the Bill of Entry, the AC made dated (1-6-98) endorsement on its reverse side, requiring the corrections to be made. The importer made the corrections and re-presented the Bill of Entry on the same day. Such corrections were also acknowledged by the AC by way of a dated (1-6-98) endorsement reading since corrected . However, the Bill of Entry was numbered on 2-6-98 only. The department proposed to levy SAD on the goods by treating this date as the relevant date for charging duty. This proposal was contested by the party. The adjudicating authority accepted the importer s plea that the relevant date for purposes of assessment of the Bill of Entry was the date (1-6-98) on which the document was originally filed. This view was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have taken note of a few pertinent facts not disputed by the Revenue. These facts are that the Bill of Entry was originally filed with the AC (Imports) by the importer on 1-6-98; that the document was returned by the AC after making dated endorsements on its reverse on the same day for correction of certain entries; that the corrected Bill of Entry was re-presented by the party on the same day as acknowledged by the AC by dated endorsement on the reverse of the document. Thus there is no dispute of the fact that the presentation and re-presentation of the Bill of Entry took place on 1-6-98 itself. The only contention of the Revenue is that a number was assigned to the Bill of Entry on the next date only and, by reason thereof, the relevant date for purposes of assessment should be that date. This argument does not appeal to me. The assignment of number to a Bill of Entry is something which is in the hands of the Revenue. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the statute has authorised customs authorities to exercise that function to the detriment of the assessee. The only way to do away with the detriment is adopt the date of filing of the Bill of Entry as the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
