TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s included within the said sum of Rs. 35,98,428/- which has been admittedly paid by the petitioner on account of customs duty for a vessel, and the petitioner claimed a refund of the said sum contending Inter Alia that no customs duty was payable. The direction of the learned Judge as given in the said order dated July 12, 1982 for the refund of the sum of Rs. 2,91,000/- over and above the said sum of Rs 35,98,428/- is, obviously, a mistake. 2. In the appeal, the respondents have filed an application praying for stay of operation of the said orders of the learned Judge. When the application for stay was taken up for hearing, it was prayed by the learned Counsel for both parties that as the principal point involved in the Rule Nisi and also in the appeal and the application relates to the interpretation of an exemption notification issued by the Central Government, which will be referred to by us presently, the Rule Nisi might be disposed of and such disposal would mean the disposal of the appeal and the application. As prayed for by the learned Counsel, we treated the Rule Nisi as on day's list and heard the same. As the appeal was not on the list, we also treated the same as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Docks, Calcutta, for appraisement of customs duty. In his letter dated February 3, 1981 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Netaji Subhash Dock, the petitioner referred to the said Bill of Entry and requested him to grant permission to start the dismantling of the vessel and undertook that nothing would be taken away from the dismantling site till the vessel had been cleared on full payment of customs duty. The Bill of Entry that was filed by the petitioner was noted by the said Assistant Collector of Customs to have been submitted on February 5, 1981. It appears that another Bill of Entry was submitted by the petitioner to the proper officer under Section 46(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on April 25, 1981. 5. A dispute arose between the parties as to the date of noting of the Bill of Entry inasmuch as the rate of customs duty to be levied depended on the date of such noting. According to the petitioner, as the Bill of Entry was noted on February 5, 1981, the pre-budget rate of customs duty as in force on that date was to be levied. On the other hand, according to the Customs Authorities, the Bill of Entry that was noted on February 5, 1981 was incomplete and was not filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs holding that the said additional sum of Rs. 2,91,000/- was not leviable. As stated already, by the said interlocutory order dated June 21, 1982 the learned Judge restrained the Central Government from proceeding with the said revision case and by the other interlocutory order dated July 12, 1981 the learned Judge directed the Customs Authorities to refund to the petition the sum of Rs. 35,98,428/- plus the said additional sum of Rs. 2,91,000/- upon furnishing Bank guarantee. The order for the refund of the latter sum was made through mistake as noticed earlier. 7. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced three contentions, namely (1) that on a proper interpretation of the said exemption notification dated October 11, 1958, it should be held that no customs duty is leviable; (2) that in case it is held to be leviable, such duty should be levied at the rate that was in force on the date of importation of the vessel in 1963, and (3) that in any event the rate of customs duty that was in force on February 5, 1981, that is, the date of noting of the Bill of Entry, should be applicable in calculating the duty payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the rate of duty that was in force on the date of importation of the vessel into India in 1963 will be applicable. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the relevant date for the application of the rate of duty is the date when the Bill of Entry was noted under Section 46(1) of the Customs Act and that date is April 25, 1981. In this connection, it may be noticed that although the statement of particulars that was filed by the petitioner has been characterised as "Bill of Entry" it is, undoubtedly, a misnomer. A Bill of Entry is required to be filed under the Customs Act at the time of importation of goods into India. Indeed, a Bill of Entry was filed when the vessel was first imported into India in 1963. After such importation, there is no question of filing any Bill of Entry with regard to the vessel. It is not understandable why the Customs Authorities have treated the statement; of particulars that was filed by the petitioner as the Bill of Entry. Section 15(1) of the Customs act, 1962 provides as follows : "15. Rate for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods. (1). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vessel in 1963, treating the same as being imported for breaking up, will be applicable to the vessel concerned, it is not necessary for us to decide the third contention made on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, we make the Rule absolute to the extent that the Customs Authorities are directed to refund to the petitioner out of the amount paid by him the amount which is in excess of the amount of duty calculated at the rate prevalent in 1963, that is to say, on the date of importation of the vessel into India. The impugned order of the Appellate Collector of Customs is quashed. Let appropriate writs in regard to the above be issued. 12. No order need be made in the appeal and the application for interim order which shall be deemed to have been disposed of by this judgment. 13. Mr. Mihir Chakraborty, learned Advocate on record for the respondents in the writ petition, prays for certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance is involved in the Rule Nisi. In the circumstances, the oral prayer for a certificate is disallowed. Murari Mohan Dutt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
