9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first petitioner) is the petitioner in W.P. 298 of 1979, and the respondent in WA. 539 of 1982 is the petitioner in W.P. 459 of 1979 (and will hereinafter be referred to as the second petitioner). 3. Each of the petitioners filed a writ petition, more or less on similar averments, each seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order of the first respondent assessing their goods for customs duty to a particular sum. Both the petitioners had imported viscose staple fibre blended yarn, the first petitioner, 142 bales and second petitioner 48 bales from the United Kingdom. The goods came by steamer 'Clan Magnair' from Middleborough Port (U.K.) to Madras. The ship entered the territorial waters of India on 7-12-1978, and b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India, from the whole of the duty of customs as well as the auxiliary duty of 20 per cent. By Notification No. 8 also dated 5-1-1979, an additional duty of not exceeding Rs. 1.32 per kilogram was levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. Reckoning 4-1-1979 viz., the date of berthing of the ship, as the relevant date for determining the point of time when the goods could be treated as chargeable, the first respondent assessed the goods on the basis of the rates prevailing as on 4-1-1979, when none of the exemption notifications was in force and assessed the tax on the basis of the Customs Tariff Act. Contending that the relevant date for chargeability was not the date of berthing of the ship, but the date of its entry into territori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , analysing the different provisions of the Customs Act and discussing the decision of the Bombay High Court in Shahwney v. Sylvania and Laxman - LXXVII Bom. L.R. 380 held that the chargeability for import duty takes place at the time of the unloading of the goods and not when the goods enter territorial waters, since the very object of the Act, was not to tax the goods which are just passing through the territorial waters but only to tax goods which get mixed with the mass of goods in India. Adopting the rationale of the above cases, another Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Lucas TVS Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs 1987 (28) E.L.T. 266 (Mad.) = 1986 W.L.R. 50 held that the time of loading into the ship, is the relevant point of tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 8, an additional duty of not exceeding Rs. 1.32 per kilogram was leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. Between 1-1-1979 and 4-1-1979 (both days inclusive) no exemption notification was in force and the duty leviable would be according to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. If the date of unloading was on the 4-1-1979, when the exemption notification was not in force, the duty leviable would be the same as now assessed, though assessment has been made taking the date of berthing as the relevant point of time. However, if the date of actual loading was on 5-1-1979, or thereafter, the Exemption Notifications Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were in force and the tax could have to be assessed only on the basis of these notifications. 8. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
