TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, are as under. The company; pursuant to import licences granted to it on 1-9-1979 and 3-9-1979, imported two consignments of Spinnerettes and the consignments so imported and valued at Indian currency at Rs. 41,91,408 and Rs. 41,35,629 respectively, were airlifted and received on 27-5-1981. On the landing of the said consignments, the clearing agents of the company filed two Bills of Entry, Nos. 1506 and 1507 dated 15-6-1981 for warehousing the consignments under Sec. 60 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The Bills of Entry so filed were assessed to duty under chapter Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, at the standard rate of 40% basic duty plus 5% auxiliary duty under the Finance Act, 1981, which were the rates prevailing on the date and the assessment was done at Rs. 18,86,133.80 and Rs. 18,61,055.05 respectively for the purpose of determining the amount of duty for execution of warehouse Bond as per Sec. 59 of the Act. On the execution of the Bonds (Nos. 4467 and 4468 of 1981, dated 14-9-1991) by the company, the goods imported were bonded in the warehouse on 14-9-1991, without payment of duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods on which duty had been paid. Again, on 31-7-1983, the company sought extension of bonding facilities for a further period of three months from 14-6-1983 to 14-9-1983 and that was granted by the Assistant Collector by his letter dated 29-8-1983. However, the company did not choose to clear the goods before 14-9-1983 and though the company informed that on 6-10-1983 the goods will be cleared, that was not done, which led to a communication from the Assistant Collector of customs dated 9-11-1983 to the effect that action under Sec. 72 of the Act would be taken. It was at this stage, the company approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the relief mentioned earlier. 3 In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the company put forward the plea that the auxiliary duty at 20% (there being no dispute regarding the basic duty of 40%) cannot be imposed, as the duty as per the value assessed at the time of the Bills of Entry for warehousing, should alone be recovered and the provisions of the Finance Act of 1983, could not be called in aid to impose 20% auxiliary duty. In addition, the company also claimed that no interest can be levied for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1983. In so far as the levy of interest at 6% from 14-9-1983 to 28-11-1983 on the entire amount of duty, without decucting Rs. 14,98,033.80 paid by the company on 23-4-1983, is concerned, the learned judge held that the interest charged was more for purposes of the overstay of the goods in the warehouse and as the company had not removed the goods, though a part payment of the duty had been made that would not enable the company to claim that it was not liable to pay interest on the total duty payable. In that view, it was also further held that under Sec. 59 of the Act, the liability to pay interest is co-extensive with the liability to pay bond-rent with the exception that the calculation and demand of interest could only be for the period of the delay in clearance. Holding that there was no justification whatever, for the refusal of the company to pay interest the learned Judge allowed the writ petition in part, in so far as the enhanced auxiliary duty was concerned and rejected the prayer in the writ petition for regarding interest. Aggrieved by this the Collector of Customs, and two others have preferred W.A. No. 1470 of 1991, in so far as it was held that enchanced auxiliar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also to secure the same by the execution of bonds, the assessment had been made and not for any other purpose. In view of this, the claim of the company that even at the time when the Bills of Entry for warehousing had been filed, an assessment had been made and that cannot be gone back upon, cannot be accepted. When, even according to the company, the goods had been entered for warehousing, the proper provision applicable would only be Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Act read with S. 68 thereof and not Sec. 15(1)(a). The learned judge, while accepting that Bills of Entry for deposit in the bonded warehouse were filed on 15-6-1981, fell into an error in holding that the goods had been entered for home consumption on arrival by presenting the Bills of Entry and therefore, the duty as leviable on that date alone, was payable. When it is not disputed by the company that the Bills of Entry filed on 15-6-1981 was for deposit of the goods in the bonded warehouse and not for clearance for home consumption, it is difficult to bring the case under Sec. 15(1)(a) of the Act. 7.It may also be pointed out that warehoused goods can be cleared for home consumption and a Bill of Entry for clearance f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the warehouse. Referring to Ss. 14 and 15 of the Act; the Supreme Court pointed out that the goods had been removed from the warehouse after the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance, 1966, had come into force, and the customs authorities as well as the Central Government were right in taking the view that the rate of duty applicable to the imported goods had to be determined according to the law, which was prevailing on the date when they were removed from the warehouse and that, there was no force in the argument that Sec. 15 should be ignored simply because the goods were imported before it came into force. In view of this decision it follows, that whatever might have been the rate of auxiliary duty on the date when the goods landed, and a Bill of Entry for warehousing had been presented, the rate of duty applicable would only be the rate of duty, which prevailed on the date when the goods were actually cleared from the warehouse. 9.It is also diffcult to accept the view taken by the learned Judge that the case falls under Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Act and that the course of import must be taken to have ended on the date specified in Sec. 15(1)(a). Sec. 68 of the Act, as noticed earlier, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
