9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (10) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner Anchorage on 19-3-1990 and an Arrival Report to that effect was given to the Customs House, at Kandla. Necessary declaration and other required documents were also filed and a request was made to the Assistant Collector of Customs to depute an Officer of Customs on that day, to complete the arrival boarding formalities. All the boarding formalities were over on 19th March, 1990. However, in view of the public notice, dated 20-2-1990, issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot, the concerned Customs Officer did not himself grant the entry inwards, but made an endorsement that it will be granted by the Assistant Collector. Moreover, because of the public notice, the Shipping Agent was required to approach the Traffic Department of the Kandla Port Trust for obtaining a certificate to the effect that the vessel was ready for discharging the cargo. The Department did not grant such certificate on 19-3-1990 and instead, granted the same only on 20-3-1990. 2. It is the petitioner's case that, it was because of the public notice that the Master of the vessel approached the Assistant Collector of Customs on 20-3-1990, with a Certificate of Readiness as regards the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence as regards the rate of duty follows therefrom. It is not only statutory but quasi-judicial in nature inasmuch as his decision not to grant entry inwards when required may lead to adverse consequences. He further submitted that discretion of a quasi-judicial authority cannot be fettered by administrative instructions. The direction which the Collector had given, was not by way of supplementing the statutory provisions, but it added to the statutory conditions, subject to which entry inwards could be granted and thus interfered with and restricted the discretion of the Customs Officer. In the alternative, he submitted that as granting of entry inwards is a statutory function, it was not open to the Collector, in exercise of his administrative powers, to impose conditions not contemplated by the Act and which had the effect of disturbing the statutory consequence. He submitted that under Section 151 A of the Customs Act, 1962, only the Board is empowered to issue such orders, instructions and directions to the Officers of the Customs as it may deem fit for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of goods or with respect to the levy of duty thereon. No such power is confer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on pilfered, lost or destroyed goods and held that, it is a quasi-judicial power. 8. We will now deal with the contention that, even if the function, which the Customs Officer has to perform while granting entry inwards is regarded as administrative, the Collector had no power to give the direction contained in the public notice dated 20-2-1990 that during the "special period" i.e. from 18-3-1990 to 24-3-1990, a certificate confirming the steamers readiness to unload cargo from the authorised person of the traffic department of Kandla should invariably be attached with the application for granting entry inwards should not be granted by the Officer on board. It was submitted that the direction given by the Collector was dehors the requirement of the Act and the Rules and without any justification, it restricted the power of the proper officer to grant entry inwards before the vessel had actually berthed, even though it was ready to discharge the cargo. He submitted that in view of the unreasonable restriction put upon the power of the proper Officer by the Collector by issuing the public notice, the proper Officer could not grant entry inwards on 19th March, 1990 and it was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was presented earlier and, therefore, the date of entry inwards is to be deemed to be the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry and it is with reference to that date that liability of the petitioner for payment of customs duty is to be fixed. 10. In this case, the arrival report and necessary declaration were filed on 19th March, 1990. The vessel had arrived on 17th March, 1990 and berthed at the inner anchorage in the morning of 19th March, 1990. The shipping agent of the vessel had, on that very day informed Assistant Collector of Customs that the vessel was brought at the inner anchorage and requested him to depute an Officer of Customs at 2.00 P.M. on that day to complete the arrival boarding formalities. On receiving that letter, the Assistant Collector directed the Preventive Officer to board the vessel and complete the boarding formalities. From the file shown to us by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, it appears that the Preventive Officer boarded the vessel at 3.00 P.M. and completed the formalities on that day. He also made an endorsement in the form that the inward entry would be granted by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla. The form als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by not granting entry inwards immediately after he completed the boarding formalities, committed any wrong. 13. Realising this difficulty, the learned Counsel submitted that, as the boarding formalities were over on 19th, the Assistant Collector himself should have passed the order on that very day. He also submitted that, there is nothing on record to show and it is not even the respondents' case that, it was not possible for the Assistant Collector to pass such an order on that day. He drew our attention to the provisions relating to special procedure contained in the Manual and submitted that these provisions are made for protection of bona fide importers and for having a check on manipulations by the importers or by the subordinate officers of Customs. He also drew our attention to Clause 76 of the Manual which makes it clear that granting of entry inwards is required to be done up to midnight of the Budget Day. He then submitted that but for the requirement of a certificate from the Port Trust Authorities, entry inwards could have been granted on 19th, as no other formality was required to be completed either by the Master of the vessel or by the Customs Authorities. 14. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondents in their reply affidavit is that, the vessel had not taken position on the berth, which was allotted to it for discharging the cargo and it was, for that reason, considered not ready to discharge the cargo. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention that the respondents were justified in treating the vessel as unready for discharging the cargo and not granting entry inwards on 19th as no fresh intimation in that behalf was given by the Master of the Vessel on that day. 16. Next thing to be considered is whether there is any substance in the contention that the vessel was not ready to discharge the cargo. Though the vessel had not berthed on 19-3-1990, the shipping agent of the vessel had issued a notice of readiness, informing the petitioner's Clearing Agents that the vessel was ready to discharge the petitioners' cargo. That is not disputed by the respondents. The fact that the vessel was also allotted berth on 18th is also not in dispute. Therefore, the question, which arises for consideration, is, whether the vessel was ready to discharge the cargo on 19th. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to Payne and Ivamy's "Carriage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is difficult to appreciate how the said clause can support the contention raised on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the contention now raised before us that even otherwise also the vessel was not ready to discharge cargo on 19-3-1990 cannot be accepted. Next thing to be considered is, whether it was within the powers of the Collector to direct that Steamer Agents and other concerned parties should attach a certificate confirming the steamer's readiness to unload cargo from the authorised person of the Traffic Department of the Kandla Port Trust along with the application for granting entry inwards. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that neither the Act nor the Rules provide for any such certificate. In absence of such a provision subjecting a Master of the vessel to obtain a certificate from an authority not concerned with the Customs Act was beyond the powers of the Collector and, therefore, that part of the public notice should be regarded as void. Neither in the reply affidavit, nor during the course of hearing, the respondents could point out any provision in the Act, authorising the Collector to impose such a condition. Even the Manual, which contains ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el had already berthed at the inner anchorage on 19th and all the boarding formalities were over on that day. But for the requirement of the certificate from the Traffic Department of the Kandla Port Trust, the Proper Officer would have passed an order, granting entry inwards on 19th. In that case, the petitioners' liability to pay customs duty would have been determined at the rate, which was applicable on 19th. It was only because of this unauthorised requirement of obtaining a certificate of steamer's readiness to unload from the authorised person of the Traffic Department of the Kandla Port Trust that the entry inwards was not granted to the vessel on 19th. It is no doubt true that, the Master of the Vessel had subjected himself to that condition and had not protested. The petitioners had no control over the same and we see no justification for subjecting the petitioner to a higher rate of duty, merely because the Customs Authorities unjustifiably insisted upon a certificate and the Master of the vessel having no option subjected himself to that condition. In fairness to the petitioners, it will have to be held that the vessel in question was entitled to entry inwards on 19-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
