TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section on February 28, 1989 also are irrelevant. The relevant date to fix the rate of customs duty, therefore, is March 2, 1989. The rate prevailed as on that date would be the duty to which the goods imported are liable to the impost and the goods would be cleared on its payment in accordance with the rate of levy of customs prevailing as on March 2, 1989. If the interim directions of the court are taken to be substitute for the statutory operation of the relevant provisions, the interest of the revenue would be prejudicially affected and the fraudulent conduct and acts done in furtherance thereof would get legitimacy to avoid payment of duty and tariff prevailing as on either dates on which the bill of entry was presented or the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. It would be easy for an importer to have the goods imported, get an order from the court to keep them in private warehousing till either the rate of tariff is reduced or the price of the goods are substantially increased by creating artificial scarcity in the market which would jeopardise the economy of the country. Accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the importer cannot be permitted to circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from March 1, 1989, the difference came to Rs. 1,80,46,092.64. 2. Shri Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that since the ship had entered into the Indian waters on February 20, 1989 and was ready to discharge the cargo, waiting clearance into the port and due to reasons beyond the control of the ship or the petitioner the goods could not be cleared until March 2, 1989 by which date the rate of levy was materially changed. As the cargo was ready for discharge from the ship from the Indian territorial waters from February 20, 1989 the duty prevailed as on that date shall be the proper duty. The petitioner presented the bill of entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption on February 27, 1989 which was received by the appraising section on February 28, 1989, that would be at least the proper date for determination of the rate of levy. We find no force in the contention. Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short 'the Act' prescribes the rate of duty and tariff valuation on imported goods thus: "15(1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force, - (a) in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution of a bill of entry for home consumption for a bill of entry for warehousing or vice versa." Sub-sections (2) and (4) are omitted as being irrelevant. 3. It is clear from bare reading of these relevant provisions that the due date to calculate the rate of duty applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force, in the case of the goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, is the date on which the bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section and in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. By operation of the proviso if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented "on the date of such entry inwards" but would be subject to the operation of Sections 46 and 31(1) of the Act. Section 46(1) provides that the importer of any goods, other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form and it may be presented under sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case and if possible to scale down the duty to a figure bearing a reasonable correlation to the value of the goods imported and that the representation is still pending consideration. Based on these subsequent events a further contention has been raised that by operation of sub-section (5) of Section 46 this court could give a proper direction to slash down the rate of duty or may direct to levy the duty prevailing as on the date of the release treating the goods under Section 15(l)(b) of the Act read with Section 68 of the Act. We have given our due consideration but find it difficult to accede to the contention. It would be clear that the rate of duty and tariff valuation on the imported goods covered under Section 15( l)(a) is the date on which the bill of entry is presented under Section 46 read with Section 31 while the rate of duty and tariff valuation in respect of the goods covered under Section 15(l)(b) is the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse under Section 68. The manifest intention would, therefore, be dear that there should be a declaration in the prescribed form by the importer of his intention to clear the goods e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
