9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector of Customs for Appraisement Group II and the Customs Appraiser, Group II, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively to request them to assess the said Bills of Entry finally but the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 failed to do so. On May 24, 1991 the petitioner requested the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Respondent No. 2 herein to look into the matter personally so that the said Bills of Entry and the petitioner could remove the goods. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, while all these things are happening, the international price of the imported goods had started coming down and apprehending huge loss, the petitioner requested for assessment of the Bills of Entry at a higher price than what had been declared by the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions. However, repeated requests made by the petitioners, both orally and verbally yielded no result. 5. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court complaining about the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities and for a direction upon the Customs Authorities to discharge their statutory duties and functions in accordance with law. In that writ petition, an interim order was passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r statutory duties and functions. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 17 of the Customs Act, it was the statutory duty and function of the Customs Authorities to assess the said Bills of Entry and to determine the duties payable on the goods in question. In the instant case, the Customs Authorities failed and/or neglected to carry out their said statutory duties and functions for a long period of about one year and eight months. During the said entire period of about one year and eight months, the only action taken by the Customs Authorities was to issue a show cause notice on 19-12-1991, that is, after about nine months of the filing of the Bills of Entry and that too, after the petitioner had filed a writ petition. The petitioner duly submitted its reply to the said notice on 21-1-1992. However, in spite of this, no step was taken by the Customs Authorities for a period of about ten months and the Bills of Entry was finally assessed on 16-11-1992. 9. On behalf of the Customs Authorities it has been contended that the mode for determination of the rate of duty and tariff valuation of the imported goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd actual removal of the goods from the warehouse for which sometimes the importer of goods may himself be responsible, in some cases the responsibility may lie on the Customs Authorities and there may also be contingencies beyond the control of both the parties. In any case the intention of the Legislature being clear, rate of duty is to be applied, as may be in force on the date of actual removal of goods from the warehouse under Section 15(l)(b) of the Customs Act." 10. It has been contended on the strength of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court that even if there was delay on the part of the Customs Officer in making the assessment, the duty payable must be the duty in force on the date of actual removal of the goods from warehouse. 11. Before examining the judgment of the Supreme Court, it must be noted that under Section 68 of the Customs Act, an importer of any warehoused goods may clear them for home consumption if (i) the Bill of Entry in the prescribed form had been presented, (ii) import duty leviable on such goods and all penalties, rent, interest and other charges in respect of such goods had been paid and (iii) an order for clearance of such goods for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms to such shorter period as he may deem fit. (ii) In the case of any goods which are likely to deteriorate, the aforesaid period of one year or three months, as the case may be, may on sufficient cause being shown be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months and by the Board for such further period as it may deem fit." 14. In the instant case, the petitioner has not applied for any extension of time. The Customs Authorities are demanding interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act after expiry of the free period of ninety days from the date of warehousing. The goods were warehoused on 23-3-1991 and the said period of ninety days therefrom expired on 18-6-1991. Long before expiry of the said period of ninety days, the petitioner had filed the Bills of Entry for ex-bond clearance for home consumption on 26-3-1991 itself. The goods remained in the warehouse thereafter solely due to inaction on the part of the Customs Authorities in assessing the Bills of Entry. 15. Section 61(2) of the Customs Act can apply only if the importer avails the warehousing facilities and thereafter does not clear the goods within the prescribed period. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
