9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs for assessment of duty. It is alleged that at the time the order was placed with the foreign firm or entered the territorial waters, according to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the duty chargeable for coils for re-rolling bars (including bright bars), rods, wire rods, strips, sheets and plates of stainless steel was 300% while in respect of other forms of alloy steel, the duty was 45%. 2.On 15-4-1982 the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 1982 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by which the said rates of duty were levelled to 300% for all types of alloy steel and high carbon steel w.e.f. 15-4-1982 but in case of circles, angles, shapes and sections of stainless steel, the duty for the period from 1-1-1981 to 15-4-1982 was reduced to 220% ad valorem plus 10% auxiliary duty vide Clause 3 of the Bill. The Bill also contained a declaration under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 according to which the tax was leviable with effect from 16-4-1982. The Government of India issued a notification on 16-4-1982 and flashed messages to give effect to these provisions. The Bill was passed and came into force with effect from 11-5-1982. 3.The petitioner refused to pay the duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ante dated 28-6-1982 was issued by the Customs on 29-6-1982 that no one had approached them with the duty and the guarantee as directed by this Court. On 1-7-1982 the duty and the requisite bonds were submitted but were not accepted by the Customs. It was on 1-7-1982 that the Customs sent a letter giving the calculations of duty on the valuation at the rate of $ 2650 per M.T. 7.On 5-7-1982 an application C.M. No. 2907/82 was made that the Customs authorities concerned be directed to deliver the goods to the Income-tax Department. 8.On 6-7-1982 the respondents applied for cancellation/modification of the interim order, vide C.M. No. 2908/82. In that application Hon'ble G.C. Jain, J. directed on 7-7-1982 that the goods be cleared on the condition that the same are kept in a bonded warehouse. It is alleged that the Customs did not allow the bonding of goods on a mere bond as required by Section 59 of the Customs Act. At the time of arguments this proposal was repeated by Mr. Wadhwa so that demurrage may not mount up but the petitioner did not seem to agree or insist upon it. 9.I directed that the matter may be posted before Hon'ble G.C. Jain, J. as it was earlier handled by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el worth crores of rupees in different names over several years and escaped income tax and wealth tax and made an order under Section 132A of the Income-Tax Act directing the Assistant Collector not to release the goods. Rather, the goods be handed over to the Income-Tax authorities. Therefore, the first question that naturally calls for consideration is the identity of the petitioner because on that depends the very locus standi of the petitioner. The letter written by the Manager Mr. Gopalkrishnan, dated 10-2-1982 to the Chief Officer, Advances Department, A.O. Madras, in connection with the Indian Steel Corporation LC/TC/10/82 for Rs. 6,65,500/- US $ 71,940/-, and his statement to the Income-Tax Department show that he knew that the Indian Steel Corporation, is a proprietorship concern of Anil Kumar, brother of Vinod Kumar; that after obtaining permission from the General Manager, he opened the letter of credit on 7-2-1982 for the abovesaid value with nil margin; that the party approached him for enhancing the value of the credit by 19.5 Lacs; and he recommended the same as the past performance of account operated by his brother Vinod Kumar was satisfactory and he felt that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the identity of the petitioner, I, for the purpose of the present problem, proceed on the presumption that the goods have been imported by the petitioner. 12.According to Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962, which faces no challenge in this petition, the rate of duty is leviable at the rate in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented to the Collector of Customs. In this case, the goods arrived on 27-4-1982 and the bill was presented on 11-5-1982. The Customs Tariff (Amendment) Bill was presented to Parliament on 15-4-1982 and though it was enacted on 11-5-1982, it came into force with effect from 16-4-1982 in view of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. Now, even if we are for a moment agreed that the vires of the latter Act are under fire, at any rate the Amendment Act came into force on 11-5-1982 and the bill of entry was presented on 11-5-1982. The petitioner, therefore, is bound to pay customs duty at the rate of 230% ad valorem. This is in spite of the position that unless declared otherwise, Acts are within the legislative ambit. It is urged that the Amendment Act is unconstitutional because all laws with permissible retrospectivity must conform t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the duty will be or could be less than what is specified in Chapter 73.15 of the Schedule I to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Promissory estoppel must first be a promise that is a proposal accepted by the petitioner - that is willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, second the petitioner must have altered his position to his prejudice on the basis of the promise. It is only then that the Government can be asked to charge a reduced rate of levy. How has the petitioner altered his position to his disadvantage on the basis of the specified duties? The Government has not apart from whether it could or could not do so, issued any clarification of Heading 73.15 of the Tariff. What is involved is not promissory estoppel but what he thought was the interpretation of Heading No. 73.15 in the Schedule I of the Customs Tariff Act. Clause 2 of Chapter 73 appears to lay down that the forms and duties mentioned against headings 73.06 to 73.13 apply to all types of iron and steel but will not apply to alloy steel or high carbon steel. Therefore, it became necessary to exclude alloy or high carbon steel from those headings because a different rate of duty was being prescribed for it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le from time to time to stainless steel sheets: Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Bill. 13.The next submission made in this regard is that assuming that circles are sheets, there is a well known distinction between defectives and prime quality forms of stainless steel and sub-heading (2) of Heading 73.15 refers to prime steel while the defective steel will be covered by sub-heading (1) that is in a form not eslewhere specified. I am unable to subscribe to such a suggestion. I wonder that it would even remotely be spelt out from any provision of the Act. The Act refuses to make any such distinction and no one neither the Revenue nor the Court can be permitted to do so. Simply because import of defectives is permitted, it does not mean that it will carry a rate of customs duty different from the rate of prime quality metal. If this is done, it is an infringement of the statute. The law only dinstinguishes between forms and shapes of the material defined with precision and detail and nowhere between defective and prime. 14.The position that emerges is that if the duty cannot exceed the one leviable before 1982 amendment, then the goods in question must be charged with 300% du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
