TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts palmoleins falling within Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) when imported into India from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule." 2. Thereafter, on 11th January, 1978, the petitioner's orders were confirmed by the brokers. On 18th February, 1979, there was a shipment of a stated quantity, which need not concern us. The ship actually arrived on 22nd February, 1979. On 1st March, 1979 the following notification came to be issued : Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 42/F. No. Cus (Bud)/79 New Delhi 1st March, 1979 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be quashed. As a consequential relief, refund is prayed for. 4. It is now argued before me that because the vires of the notification dated 1st March, 1979, is involved, the writ petitioner has approached this court directly without exhausting the other remedies of appeal and revision to the Central Board of Revenue. On this basis it is contended (1) under Section 15 of the Customs Act, import would mean when the ship arrives at the territorial waters of India. Therefore, this notification dated Ist March, 1979 cannot have retrospective effect; and (2) the power to grant exemption is under Section 25 of the Act. That cannot be used for the purpose of levying duty as is sought to be done under the impugned notification dated 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. Therefore, the relevant date is the date of the presentation of the bill of entry, which, in this case is 13th March, 1979. Therefore, the first of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails. 7. With reference to the second contention, I have already extracted the impugned notification. It nowhere purports to levy any duty. It merely exempts up to 87-1/2%. The logical corollary is that over and above this would be liable to duty. The power to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
