9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of customs duty there was partial exemption under notification issued by the Central Government. The vessel in which the, consignment was loaded, arrived in Bombay on October 23,1982 and till November 13,1982 discharged part of the cargo. The part of the consignment imported by respondent No. 1 could not be discharged due to operational reasons and the balance cargo of respondent No. 1 left to be discharged was 2280 tons. On December 31,1982 the steamship company sought permission from the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay to allow the vessel to overcarry 2280 tons of cargo of respondent No. 1 for the vessel's coastal voyage from Bombay to Madras, Vizag, Haldia and Calcutta before being brought to Bombay. The steamship company execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 189 [Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. v.Union of India] the customs authorities were justified in calculating enhanced rate of duty after the vessel returned to Bombay in December 1982. The decision undoubtedly supports the contention of Shri Devdhar that the rate of duty to be recovered is one which is prevalent on the date when the cargo is to be cleared for home consumption. In the case before the Supreme Court the vessel had arrived at Bombay on July 23, 1981 and on the bill of entry filed by the importer rotation number, which is equivalent to import general manifest was endorsed on the bill of entry. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e higher rate of duty will be recovered. We find considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel. Shri Devdhar could not explain as to why the Assistant Collector of Customs permitted the shipping company to overcarry 2280 tons of imported cargo to Madras, Haldia and Calcutta with the promise that the same could be brought back to Bombay within two months time with the same import general manifest. This promise on the part of the customs authorities disentitled the appellants from demanding higher rate of duty in December 1982. For this reason, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the learned single Judge, and the appeal must fail. 4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
