9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of its issue on 01st March 2018; (ii) I hold that self-assessment of Bills of Entry No.5415756, 5415757 and 5415814, all dated 01.03.2018, made by the importers M/s. Adani Wilmar Limited, Ahmedabad under Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of subject goods i.e., 4999.910 MT of RBD Palmolein of Edible Grade imported by them through New Mangalore Port per vessel MT SONGA DAIMOND V.107, by claiming Basic Customs Duty exemption in excess of 54% under Sl. No.65 of original notification No.50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 read with amending notification No.29/2018- Cus dated 01.03.2018 and read with Section 15, Section 25(4), Section 31 and Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the duty paid by them as detailed at Table 1 are in order." 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Imports) held that Notification Number 29/2018 Cus dated 01.03.2018 [the exemption notification] that increased the basic customs duty from 40% to 54% in respect of RBD Palm Olien Edible Grade [the imported goods] classifiable under CTH 1511 9090 through three Bills of Entry, each dated 01.03.2018, came into effect from the date of its issue on 01.03.2018 and not on 06.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be passed. 9. According to the appellant, the exemption notification was effective only from 06.03.2018 when it was published in the Gazette after it was digitally signed on 06.03.2018 at 19:15 hours. 10. The appellant has tabulated and summarized the events as under:- Sr. No. Date Particulars 1. 01.03.2018 Bill of Entries filed by the appellant for clearance of RBD Palmolein Edible Grade 2. 02.03.2018 Vessel arrived and tendered "Notice for Readiness‟ at Mangalore Anchorage at 14:36 hours 3. 05.03.2018 Vessel was granted inward entry at 11:45 hours 4. 06.03.2018 Notification No. 29/2018 dated 01.03.2018, amending Notification No. 50/2017 was signed and published in the Official Gazette at 19:15 hours 11. The appellant claims that even though the imported goods should have been charged duty at the rate applicable under Notification No. 50/2017 as it stood on 05.03.2018, the Bills of Entry were erroneously re-assessed at a higher rate of duty @ 54% under Notification dated 01.03.2018. 12. This re-assessment order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) stressed upon section 25(4) of the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unamended section 25(4) of the Customs Act without appreciating that the ratio of the decisions would be applicable even after the amendment was made in section 25(4) of the Customs Act in the year 2016. 16. Shri K.A. Jathin, learned authorised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the digital signature was made only for the purpose of e-publishing the notification in the Official Gazette and as per section 25(4) of the Customs Act, the notification came into force on 01.03.2018, on which date it was issued. Learned authorised representative pointed out that since the three Bills of Entry were filed on 01.03.2018 before date of entry inwards of the vessel i.e. 05.03.2018, the date for determination of rate of duty is 05.03.2018 in terms of the proviso to section 15(1) of the Customs Act and hence the basic customs duty applicable would be @54%. 17. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the department have been considered. 18. Section 25 of the Customs Act deals with power to grant exemption from duty. Sub-section (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mar Limited. The facts of the case reveal that on 27.02.2018 the vessel arrived with palm edible oils at Mundra anchorage. On 28.02.2018, the entry was granted to the vessel and on 01.03.2018 the petitioner filed the Bill of Entry with regard to the said goods which were assessed to duty at rate of 40% in terms of the Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017, as was amended by Notification No. 87/2017 dated 17.11.2017. On 17.03.2018, the Bill of Entry was reassessed to a higher rate of duty at 54%. The Gujarat High Court noted that it was on 06.03.2018 that the Notification No. 29 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 enhancing the rate of duty from 40% to 54% was digitally signed. The issue, therefore, that arose before the Gujarat High Court was whether the exemption notification dated 01.03.2018 will be effective from 01.03.2018 or 06.03.2018, on which date it was digitally signed. In this connection the Gujarat High Court, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills [2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (SC)] and also upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ruchi Soya Industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of section 25 (4) of the Customs Act would be the date of its publication in the Official Gazette on 06.03.2018 and so the notification cannot be said to have come into force on 01.03.2018. The High Court, therefore, held that the enhanced rate of duty under the exemption notification was not payable on 01.03.2018. 24. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the entry inwards was granted to the vessel on 05.03.2018 at 11:45 hours. At that time the notification dated 30.06.2017, as amended on 17.11.2017, imposing duty at the rate of 40% was applicable. The exemption notification increasing the duty from 40% to 54% came into effect only on 06.03.2018. The Bills of Entry, therefore, could not have been reassessed at the higher rate of duty @54% under the notification dated 01.03.2018. 25. This issue also arose before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries in the context of the same exemption notification dated 01.03.2018. The petitioner filed Bills of Entry dated 01.03.2018 claiming classification and rate of duty at the rate of 30% basic customs duty. The department, however, insisted for payment of enhanced rate of duty under the exemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
