9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of export duty on goods with shipping bills submitted on the same day. 2. Interpretation of Section 16 of the Customs Act for fixing the rate of duty and tariff valuation. 3. Relevance of the date of presentation of shipping bills or entry outwards of the vessel for export goods. 4. Precedent set by the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal v. P.S. Thrivikraman regarding the relevant date for determining export duty. 5. Allegation of violation of Constitutional provisions in the levy of export duty. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the determination of export duty on goods for which shipping bills were submitted on the same day. The petitioners argued that as the shipping bills were presented on the same day as the notification levying export duty was issued, they should not be liable to pay the duty. 2. The court referred to Section 16 of the Customs Act, which specifies that the rate of duty and tariff valuation for export goods is based on the date of presentation of shipping bills or the date of entry outwards of the vessel. The court highlighted that the relevant date for fixing the duty is crucial, regardless of subsequent events like the entry outwards of the vessel. 3. Citing the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal v. P.S. Thrivikraman, the court emphasized that the date of presentation of the shipping bill is significant for determining the duty on export goods. The proviso to Section 16 provides for a fictional date based on the entry outwards of the vessel, as granted by the proper Officer under Section 39 of the Act. 4. The court addressed the contention of the alleged violation of Constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 19(l)(f) and (g), 31, and 265. It ruled that the levy of export duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act or the publication of notifications in advance does not contravene the mentioned Constitutional articles. 5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that there was no merit in the arguments presented. The rule was discharged with costs, and any interim relief provided was vacated. The judgment reaffirmed the obligation of the petitioners to pay the export duty based on the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and previous legal precedents.
|
