TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on due furnishing of all necessary informations and particulars, including the invoices to the Customs authorities for examination and assessment of export duty on the consignment. It has been alleged that in the shipping bill and the concerned invoices the petitioner specifically mentioned the gross weight and net weight of the unmanufactured tobacco contained in those bags. The net weight in fact has been stated, was specifically mentioned as 8270.700 Kgs., in the concerned shipping bill and the invoice. It has also been stated by the petitioner that other particulars including the value of the good in those documents, was supplied and duly filled in. It has been contended that under the said Act of 1962, it is the function, duty and jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to assess the amount of export duty, which the exporter is required to pay, before the goods were declared and were allowed to .be exported. In fact, there is not doubt that goods were allowed to be exported only on payment of the duty as assessed. It appears that the exporter in the instant case, the petitioner, had nothing to pay with the assessment of the export duty, excepting the furnishing of all inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly, 1969 and thereafter, on 10th November, 1970 i.e. long after the shipment of the goods. The Assistant Collector concerned issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and thereby demanded an extra duty of Rs. 2032.19P. alleging that the same was short levied. As no payment was either made or a reply was given admittedly, a further demand by the said Officer was made on 24th March, 1970 and this time the demand, instead of Rs. 2032.19 as shown originally was shown as Rs. 2429.38. After this, the petitioner replied to the show cause and contended inter alia amongst others that there was no wrong computation of assessable value done or made by it in the shipping bill and that the duty was duly and appropriately assessed by the officers of the respondents, after due and necessary check up and examination. It was contended that only after due satisfaction, after such check up, the Assistant Collector of Customs concerned, assessed the amount of duty, which was also paid by the petitioner in respect of the goods as covered by the shipping bill. It was also averred that there was no wrong on the part of the petitioner and in fact there was no short levy of customs duty in the shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, although the weight of the tobacco was specifically mentioned in the documents for export. These apart, the petitioner has contended that the realisation of the excess duty prior to the decision of the appeal and revision by the Assistant Collector of Customs and others was arbitrary, irregular, illegal and contrary to the said Act of 1962. It has been submitted that the assessment of duty having been made finally in terms of S. 17 of the said Act of 1962, any further assessment or re-assessment under Section 17(3) or (4) of that Act, in the absence of a wrong information in the invoice, the shipping bill and the Bank's certified invoice produced by the petitioner, would be without jurisdiction and not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. In view of the above, it has been stated by the petitioner that the action of the authorities concerned in the instant case, was not only illegal and without jurisdiction, but they have acted in excess of their jurisdiction in assessing the export duty on the value of goods and realising the same from the petitioner. It has been specifically contended that the demand for further amount of duty was also illegal and without jurisdiction, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have further contended that the actual construction of the concerned notification should be that if the duty on calculation, on the basis of weight (i.e. .75 paise per kilogram), comes lower than that if calculated at 20% ad valorem, the same should be calculated @ 20% ad valorem on the basis of exemption notification. 7. Mr. Burman contended firstly, that the duty as assessed, was not only arbitrary, excessive and without jurisdiction, but the same was illegal and irregular and since such levy was not in accordance with law or the same was levied at a rate higher than what was leviable under the customs tariff, the petitioner was not liable or obliged or cannot be made to pay the same. In that view of the matter, he also submitted that since the demand as made, was not in accordance with the sanction of law, the same was also violative of Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India. These apart, Mr. Burman further submitted that on the facts the case in this proceeding was as not a case of short levy but really a case of re-assessment and much re-assessment was not permissible or possible, when there was no laches or wilful default on the part of the petitioner to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
