9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seeds . All these bills of entry were presented to the Group on 27-10-08 for assessment. The Group appraiser marked all the three bills of entry for first appraisement in presence of PHO and PQ authorities and examination thereafter. However, the appellant vide their letters dated 12-11-08 and 18-11-08 requested for cancellation of these advance home consumption bill of entry in terms of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, the ground being that the vessel had arrived much after expiry of thirty days from the date of filing of the advance home consumption bills of entry. They also requested for allowing them to file fresh warehousing bills of entry. Subsequently, the appellant were called for the hearing. In the hearing they again requeste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills of entry beyond the period of thirty days when the law under section 46 as well as the instructions under the Customs Act itself do not provide so. Once they have exercised these options to withdraw the bills of entry, the lower authority cannot thereafter on its own accept the bills of entry and make assessments on these. That the reference to section 46(5) of the Customs Act by the lower authority is not proper as the same is not applicable to their case. The proviso to Section 15 is applicable only where conditions under Section 46 are satisfied. Therefore, the order passed by the lower authority is incorrect. They requested that the assessment order may be set aside and they be allowed to withdraw the bills of entry as requested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentation of such bill of entry. But if the vessel fails to arrive within the stipulated period, in that case, such bill of entry will cease to have validity. Thus the bill of entry has either to be withdrawn by the importer or it is to be cancelled by the Department. If this construction is not given, then there would be no sanctity in prescribing the period of thirty days as referred to in the proviso to Section 46(3). In which case this provision will become redundant. Since full force has to be given to an enacted provision, including this sub-section, any other interpretation would lead to contradictions and difficulties. 6. Though the appellant was required to get the bills of entry cancelled no sooner the period of thirty days ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requests made by the appellant. Secondly, this could not have been done when the period of thirty days expired long time back. Therefore, the regularization of the bill of entry was erroneous and does not have the sanction of law. 8. In the impugned order, the lower authority has assessed the bills of entry in terms of the provision of Section 15, which relate to the determination of the rate of duty or the tariff valuation. The proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 would only be applicable where a prior bill of entry had been filed and the vessel arrives within the specified period of thirty days. Otherwise there will be a conflict with the provisions contained in the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 46. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
