1984 (6) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 29/79-Cus regarding concessional rate of duty for imported goods.
2. Application of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in determining the rate of duty.
3. Whether the appellants had a vested right in the benefit conferred by the notification.
4. Deeming the Bill of Entry for warehouse clearance as a Bill of Entry for home consumption.
5. Impact of the deletion of a relevant entry in the notification on the duty assessment.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants importing stamping foils and claiming a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 29/79-Cus for embellishments in leather footwear. However, the relevant entry in the notification was deleted before the goods were cleared from the warehouse, leading to a dispute over the applicable duty rate.

2. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which dictate that the rate of duty for imported goods cleared from a warehouse is based on the duty rate in force on the date of actual removal from the warehouse. In this case, the deletion of the relevant entry in the notification meant the concessional rate was no longer applicable at the time of clearance.

3. The appellants argued they had a vested right in the benefit conferred by the notification, but the Tribunal held that the concession was subject to the provisions of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of eligibility for the concessional rate was governed by the Act, not by any vested right under the notification.

4. The appellants suggested deeming the Bill of Entry for warehouse clearance as one for home consumption to apply a different provision of Section 15(1). However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the Bill of Entry's nature was clear, and it was for clearance from the warehouse, not for home consumption.

5. The Tribunal upheld the denial of the concessional rate under the notification due to the deletion of the relevant entry. It emphasized that the appellants' grievance over increased duty due to customs clearance delay was not within the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial authorities but suggested seeking recourse in a civil court for such matters.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and emphasizing the procedural and statutory framework governing duty assessment and the limited scope of quasi-judicial authorities in addressing grievances beyond their purview.