TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded by subsequent Notification No. 63, dated 1-3-1979 and thus in effect c.v. duty became chargeable on these goods w.e.f. 1-3-1979. As the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse after 1-3-1979, so the customs authorities also charged the c.v. duty on these goods. The respondents did not dispute the levy of basic customs duty and auxiliary duty but impugned the levy of c.v. duty and filed their claims for refund of c.v. duty that was paid by them at the rate of 8% in all these four cases. Their main contention was that when the goods were imported the same were fully exempt from the payment of c.v. duty although on the date of their ex-bond clearance the relevant Exemption Notification No. 364, dated 2-8-1976 was rescinded by Notification No. 63 dated 1-3-1979. 4. The Assistant Collector of Customs, rejected their claims on the ground that under Section 15(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 the date of the actual removal of the goods from the warehouse is the crucial date for the purpose of levy of duty. When the goods were cleared ex-bond in these four cases, c.v. duty was chargeable on the goods and as such, according to the Asstt. Collector the same was rightly charged. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 63, dated 1-3-1979 and thus in effect c.v. duty became chargeable on these goods w.e.f. 1-3-1979. As these goods were removed from the bonded warehouse after 1-3-1979, so the customs authorities rightly charged the c.v. duty on these goods. According to him, Section 12 of the Customs Act cannot be read in isolation but along with Sections 14 and 15 of the Customs Act, Section 15(1) of the Customs Act clearly lays down that the rate of duty and the tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and value in force, in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. In these cases, the goods were actually removed from the warehouse after 1-3-1979 when these goods became liable to pay c.v. duty at the rate of 8% when admittedly the benefit of Notification No. 364, dated 2-8-1976 stood withdrawn and therefore, the assessment of these goods was rightly made as per the rates prevailing at that time. He cited a decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen and Others (1979 E.L.T. J 241) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 548-549/1983-C, dated 25-11-1983) in support of his contention that the rate of duty applicable to imported goods is to be as per Section 15 of the Act, irrespective of the entry of the goods in the territorial waters of India. The rate of duty applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate in force on the date on which the warehoused goods are actually removed from the warehouse. Whether the goods were totally exempt from the payment of duty or partially exempt by a notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act makes no difference. If the goods are subject to payment of duty on the date when the Bill of Entry was presented or when the goods were removed from the bonded warehouse, it is that rate of duty which was prevalent on that date which would be applicable and not the one which was at the date when the goods entered the territorial waters of India. The Appellate Collector has gone wrong while allowing the appeals ignoring the law as laid down by Hon ble The Supreme Court and various other High Courts and therefore, his orders are liable to be set aside. 11. Shri J.J. Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the in ported goods were not lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Prakash Cotton Mills (supra) decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court do not apply to these cases. The question of applicability of exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Act did not fall for consideration of the Supreme Court and the question which was answered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Sylvania Laxman s case (supra) did not come for consideration before the Supreme Court. The decisions of other High Courts, namely Delhi High Court in Jain Shudh Vanaspati (supra), Kerala High Court in Aluminium Industries (supra) and that of Madras High Court in M. Jamal Co. (supra) could not be made use of in preference to the decision of Bombay High Court by the Appellate Collector at Bombay, who was deciding the matter which had arisen within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. 14. Referring to the decision of Bombay High Court in Synthetics Chemicals Ltd. v. S.C. Coutinho and Others (supra), Shri Bhat argued that in that case the goods imported were partially exempt from customs duty at the time of their import i.e. on the date of crossing the territorial waters but on the date on which they were cleared from the customs warehouse, the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a High Court has jurisdiction over all the Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdictions. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dealing with the matters arising within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court is bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court. The matter in dispute had arisen at Bombay and therefore, he was bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the absence of any contrary decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 17. No doubt, Delhi High Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited (supra), Kerala High Court in the case of Aluminium Industries Ltd. (supra) and Madras High Court in the case of M. Jamal Co. (supra) have categorically laid down that levy is not confined only to the import of the goods but extends to assessment and that the relevant date is the presentation of the Bill of Entry or removal of the goods from the warehouse, but we have to find out as to what is the view of the Bombay High Court on this point and whether there is any decision of the Supreme Court dealing with this point to arrive at the correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the same that entry in the territorial waters though amounting to import, yet will not, for fiscal purposes determine the date and time for the purpose of calculating the rate of duty which is leviable under the provisions of the Customs Act. 20. In view of these judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of the Land i.e. the Supreme Court, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, who decided these appeals has gone wrong in holding that the goods which were not liable to duty when imported could not be subject to duty by procedure under Section 15 of the Customs Act. The decision of the Supreme Court is not distinguishable on this point as the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that the rate of duty, rate of exchange and tariff valuation applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the warehouse goods are actually removed from the warehouse. 21. In these cases the goods were actually removed from the warehouse after 1-3-1979, when they were subject to levy of c.v. duty at the rate of 8%.Whether the goods were partially exempted or totally exempted on the date of importation makes no difference as far as the cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
