1990 (3) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notifications 307 and 308 dated 25-11-1988
- Applicability of Notification 87/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987
- Effect of delayed knowledge of change in duty rates
- Comparison of conflicting judicial precedents

Analysis:

The case involved the interpretation of Notifications 307 and 308 issued on 25-11-1988, affecting the concessional rate of duty under Notification 87/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987. The appellants contended that since the Custom House and the public became aware of the changes in duty rates only on 28-11-1988 due to holidays, the Bills of Entry filed on 25-11-1988 should be governed by the earlier Notification 87/87. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected this argument, leading to the appeals.

The appellants relied on judicial precedents, including the Tribunal's decision in Silibans International, which in turn cited the Supreme Court's judgment emphasizing the importance of notifying changes in laws to those governed by them. The Supreme Court's observations highlighted the necessity of making laws known for compliance. The appellants argued that the Bills of Entry should be charged at the lower duty rate per Notification 87/87, following the principles outlined in the cited cases.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (D.R.) referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in General Fibre Dealers Ltd., presenting additional facts regarding the printing and sale dates of Notifications 307 and 308. The D.R. highlighted that the public's earliest knowledge of the changes was on 28-11-1988 when the telex was sent to the Custom House.

After considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal sided with the appellants. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in B.K. Srinivasan and Others v. State of Karnataka, the Bombay High Court's decision in G.T.C. Industries Ltd., and the Madras High Court's ruling in Asia Tobacco Co., the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of making laws known and ruled that the Bills of Entry filed on 25-11-1988 should be charged at the lower duty rate specified in Notification 87/87. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.