9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n have been produced at Annexure-A to the petition. Clause 12 of the terms and conditions provides that the highest bidder shall have to pay the customs duty chargeable under the existing law of the Central Government and other taxes if any liable to be paid to the Government over and above the bid value. There were 53 bidders at the time of auction which was held on May 20, 1980. The petitioner quoted Rs. 13,00,000/- (thirteen lakhs) and it was the highest bid. Respondent No. 1 as per order dated June 19, 1980 produced at Annexure C to the petition confirmed the auction sale of vessel called Al Madina, Egyptian vessel. 2. It appears that by letter dated August 30, 1980 (copy of the same is not produced on record) written by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of vessel Al Madina. 3. On behalf of the Respondents it is contended that the petitioner entered into a contract with Respondent No. 1. As per the terms of the contract, the petitioner is liable to pay customs duty. As disclosed in the letter dated September 13, 1980, the question with regard to the liability to pay customs duty was clarified at the time of auction over and above the fact that it has been specifically mentioned in Clause No. 12 of the terms and conditions of auction. Even the petitioner did not claim that the goods were not liable to import duty. But the petitioner claimed exemption on various grounds. The request for exemption has been turned down by the Government of India. In view of this position it is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case also, the petitioner has entered into a contract with Respondent No. 1. At the auction the terms and conditions of sale were clarified. As per the letter dated September 13, 1980 written by Respondent No. 1, it is clear that the clarification as regards the liability to pay customs duty was made at the time of auction. Even the petitioner gave in writing on June 17, 1980 and undertook to pay the customs duty and M.S.T.C. charges. Be it noted that the customs duty payable was in fact paid. In this view of the matter, now after purchasing the vessel on certain terms and conditions, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he is not liable to pay the customs duty. As observed by the Bombay High Court, in this case also if the disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this point and has fairly conceded that it cannot be said that there is no import of vessel into India. In view of this concession, this contention is not required to be considered in detail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no customs duty is chargeable on the vessel. It was also submitted that duty if at all could be levied would be under Heading No. 89.04 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and that there is no other heading in which the articles sold to the petitioner would fall. Item No. 89.04 reads as follows :- "89.04 : Ships, boats and other vessels for breaking up: 40%" It was also contended that in similar cases in past no duty was charged and if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
