9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was assessed for payment of duty. In so far as the petitioner in W.M.P. No. 22831 of 2001, the petitioner submitted the bill of entry for home consumption on 3-8-2001 and when the petitioners sought to remove the goods on payment of duty assessed as per bill of entries, the respondents placing reliance on the impugned Government Order insisted the petitioners to pay the differential duty as per the impugned notification. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the said notification was issued under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). The said section specifically provides that such notification shall be published in the Official Gazette. The impugned notification has not been published in the Official Gazette on 3-8-2001. When there was no publication of the notification in the Official Gazette as contemplated under Section 14(2) of "the Act", the said notification cannot be put against the petitioners for the purpose of payment of differential duty than the one assessed under the bill of entries filed prior to the notification. The learned Counsel submitted that as per Section 25(1) of "the Act", the Central Government may by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 3-8-2001. Hence, the judgment of the Supreme Court equally applies to the notification issued and published under Section 14(2) of "the Act" also. Insofar as the date which has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing of duty, the learned Addl. Solicitor General referred to the proviso to Section 15 of "the Act". As per the said proviso, if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. Admittedly, in all the three petitions the entry inwards was only on 5-8-2001 much after the impugned notification came into force on 3-8-2001. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that prima facie there is a case in favour of the respondents and therefore he opposed the interim directions sought for in the writ miscellaneous petitions. 4.The petitioner in W.P. No. 14563 of 2001 has filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent therein to permit clearance of the imported RBD Palmolein (Edible Grade) covered under Bill of Lading Nos. BLW/AIP-16A, 16B, 191A to 191F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the respondents in the writ petition seeks to vacate the interim directions granted by this Court. 5.Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 15(1) of "the Act", in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, the tariff value applicable to the imported goods shall be the date on which the bill of entries in respect of the goods are presented and in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, on the date when the goods were actually removed from the warehouse. The said Section 15(1)(a) and (b) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) (D.C.M. v. Union of India) and the Supreme Court has observed that it is the date of the filing of the bill of entry which determines the rate of duty in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the bill of entries have already been accepted and the duty was assessed prior to the notification dated 3-8-2001, the petitioner is entitled to remove the goods from the warehouse by paying only the duty as per the bill of entries pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given by this Court has to be vacated as the petitioner is liable to pay the differential duty in respect of 10 bill of entries. 7.As per Section 14(1) of "the Act", the impugned notification should be published in the Official Gazette so as to put the notification against the petitioners for duty liability. Prior to the notification, all the petitioners are entitled to remove the goods on the basis of assessment of duty made in the respective bill of entries for home consumption. After the impugned notification, and enhanced duty has been imposed and if the notification is made applicable to the petitioners, the petitioners should pay the differential duty as per the notification. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the notification did not come into force on 3-8-2001 as the same has been published only on 6-8-2001. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General produced the copy of the notification published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001. The relevant date by which a notification comes into force came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2000 (9) SCC 461 wherein in Paragraph 11 of the said judgment whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich admittedly was on 5-8-2001. Therefore, the relevant date for the assessment of the duty is only on 5-8-2001. When admittedly the date on which the entry inwards of the vessel was 5-8-2001. If that be so, the petitioners shall in all the three petitions cannot escape the duty as prescribed under the impugned notification. Prima facie, I find force in the above contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General and hold that the petitioners are liable to pay the levy of duty as per the impugned notification to remove the goods. 9.Insofar as the interim directions given by this Court in W.M.P. 21619 of 2001, admittedly, the petitioner has filed 16 Ex. Bond bill of entries under Section 15(1)(b) of "the Act" after the petitioner had earlier filed bill of entries for warehousing. Out of 16 bill of entries, the petitioner had admittedly removed the goods relating to 6 bill of entries. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is out (sic), that since the petitioner's bill of entry for home consumption has been already assessed to duty, the petitioner is entitled to remove the goods on the basis of the payment of duty as assessed by the respondents on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
