9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Bills of entry in respect of these two consignments were submitted by the appellants on 6th March, 1976 and 9th March, 1976 before the ship's agents had filed their final entry manifest. The said ship entered the Bombay Port on 14th March, 1976 at about 6 p.m. The ship's agents filed the final entry manifest on 15th March, 1976 at 2 p.m. Entry inwards was granted to the ship on 19th March, 1976. 2. Prior to 15th March, 1976 the consignments in question were covered under tariff item 63(8) of the Customs Tariff. Under item 63(8) the appellants were required to pay ad valorem duty of customs on these consignments at the rate of 40 per cent. Under a customs notification issued on 1st March, 1968, as amended by a subsequent customs notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Petition No. 1291/76 in this Court praying that the assessment in respect of the said two consignments at the higher rate as set out in the assessment orders should be set aside and the excess amount of duty which has already been paid by the appellants should be refunded. Their contentions have been negatived by a learned single Judge of this Court. The present appeal is from the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the petition of the appellants. 5. It is the case of the appellants that at the date when the said two consignments were imported, i.e., entered the territorial waters of India the rate of duty leviable was only 30 per cent ad valorem. Hence the rate of duty leviable is as on this date of import. The subsequent incr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport and the date (inter alia) of presenting a bill of entry, the goods would bear the changed rate of duty. 6. Section 15 of the said Act deals with the rate at which duties of customs have to be paid. Under this section, inter alia, the rate of duty shall be : "......the rate and valuation in force,-(a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption...... on the date on which a bill of entry in respective of such goods is presented......" The proviso to section 15 is as follows : "Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards." Under section 15, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in item 63(30) of the Customs Tariff Act. Hence the goods should be held as falling under item 63(8) and not [under] amended item 63(30) which came into force only on the, midnight of 15-3-1976. The bills of entry however, were presented before the grant of entry inwards to the vessel in question. Under the proviso to section 15 therefore, the bills of entry will have to be deemed to have been presented On the ,date of such entry inwards. In the present case entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 19th March, 1976. Hence the duty as leviable on 19th March, 1976 will have to be paid by the appellants. 9. The appellants have contended that in the present case the ship had entered the Bombay Port late in the evening on 14th March, 1976. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the present case the Master of the vessel was ready to discharge its cargo only on 19th March, 1976 and on the same day entry inwards was granted. In the earlier case the ship had been ready to discharge its cargo on the earlier date and in fact it had discharged cargo on the earlier date in midstream. Such is not the case here. Entry inwards has been granted as soon as the ship was ready to discharge its cargo. 11. In this connection a public notice which is issued on 11th July, 1967 by the Additional Collector of Customs in connection with procedures relating to sections 15 and 16 of the Customs Act, 1962 is very relevant. It sets out that very often ships arrive in the harbour and stay there for days but are not ready for discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others reported in 1979 Cen-Cus/ 17D = 1978 E.L.T. (J 511). In that case Central Excise item no. 18 was amended. A new tariff item no. 18E was introduced, as a result of which the goods in question fell under the new tariff item no. 18E. Under the. previous tariff item no. 18 which originally covered the goods in question there was an exemption notification which exempted the goods from excise duty. But after the new tariff item 18E was introduced in the excise tariff the benefit of the previous notification under item no. 18 was "not given to the petitioners. They were charged the full duty payable under tariff item 18E. The learned single Judge relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
