9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plant could not be cleared resulting in heavy damages to the petitioner.The petitioner when approached the authorities, they were called upon to pay the duty at the market rate instead of the official rates not to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that the item imported by them fell under Chapter 84 in general and Item referable to 84.44 in particular, and that in terms of the provisions contained in the Tariff Act read with Exemption Notification No. 59/87 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, the duty leviable in respect of the goods imported by them was only 35%. Their claim also is that the whole of the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was exempted in respect of all the goods falling under Chapter 84 or 85. This exemption was claimed on the basis of the statements said to have been made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister. Union of India, while presenting in Parliament the budget for the year 1994-95. At the same time, it is stated that by mistake or by oversight, the assurance or the statement of the Finance Minister was not effectively carried out while issuing the amendment to the Notification No. 59/87 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India during the Budget speech as noticed supra and that the demand of the said amount also from the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, an objection is taken on the ground that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 128 of the Act and that, therefore, this Court ought not to interfere in the matter at the instance of the petitioner. On merits, the counter affidavit adopts the stand taken by the second respondent in the impugned order and justifies the action of the second respondent. As for the plea with reference to the rate of exchange to be applied for computing the value to assess the duty, it is stated for the respondents, that the Bill of Entry bearing No. 27270 was filed with the Customs Department for admission only on 30-6-1994, after a long delay from the date of landing of the goods in February, 1993, that the petitioner/their clearing agents did not furnish in the said Bill of Entry, a very essential detail, namely the Importer Code number and when the Bill of Entry was fed into the Computer on 30-6-1994, it was not accepted and only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely on the strength of a statement made by the Finance Minister in the Budget Speech. In the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court it was held that a Budget Speech can neither constitute law nor operate as an estoppel to constitute promissory estoppel against the State. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The plea and objection of availability of alternative remedy, in my view, will not help the respondents in this case to object to this Court countenancing the writ petition for consideration. The Appellate or Revisional Authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Act are, strictly bound by the provisions of the Act and the Rules as well as the Notifications issued under the Act and cannot entertain for consideration the claims of the nature based upon equitable or promissory estoppel against the State for granting relief even in the absence of any specific provision or countenance of a plea of promissory estoppel against the department even in the teeth of a notification to the contra and consideration of such plea may not be permissible before the Statutory Authorities bound by the specific provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such presentation and not as on any subsequent or future date. The stipulation in Section 46 pertaining to the presentation of the Bill of Entry is confined to it being merely in the prescribed form and not necessarily with all and every one of the particulars and particularly complete in all respects and more so with accuracy of the information given. The mere fact that any one information in the prescribed form is not furnished or any defective or incorrect information is furnished, for any reason whatsoever, is no disentitling or disqualifying factor to outright reject or condemn the Bill of Entry presented otherwise in the prescribed form or to treat the same as one not presented on the actual date of its presentation as such. In this case, indisputably the Importer's Code number alone has not been given and I am of the view that the lapse or omission in this regard will not in any manner detract the Bill of Entry presented, the credibility of it being the Bill of Entry presented in the prescribed form or the fact that it has been for all purposes of the Act presented on 30-6-1994. The fact that the information relating to the Importer's Code number was furnished only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
