2018 (1) TMI 923 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of petitioner in 'Yellow Peas' customs duty case, orders re-assessment.

M/s. Lakshmi Dall Mill Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group I)

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case involving a delay in generating a bill of entry, resulting in a change in customs duty rate for ... Applicable Rate of Duty - date of presentation of Bill of Entry - what is the date on which the bill of entry in this case was presented by the petitioner under Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962? - Held that: - the proviso to Section 46(1) states that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, in cases where it is not feasible to make entry by presenting electronically, allow an entry to be presented in any other manner. As per Section 46(3), A bill of entry under sub-section (1) may be presented at any time after the delivery of the import manifest or import report, as the case may be. In the present case also even though the importer had filed all the relevant particulars on 07.11.2017 itself, it was on account of the system related fault, the bill of entry got generated on 08.11.2017. The approach set out in the aforesaid Instruction No.12/2017-Customs dated 31.08.2017 deserves to be adopted in the present case also. There is a maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit’. It means that nobody should suffer for the wrong done by a quasi-judicial body. The aforesaid instruction is also an analogous application of the same principle. In the law of contracts also, no party is expected to do an act impossible in itself. Since the Notification No.84 of 2017 was issued only on 08.11.2017, the writ petitioner's case will not be governed by the same - in the light of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty applicable to the import in question will be the one that obtained on 07.11.2017- petition allowed. Issues:1. Delay in generating bill of entry leading to change in customs duty rate.2. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding presentation of bill of entry.3. Application of equitable considerations in fiscal levy matters.Analysis:1. The petitioner imported 'Yellow Peas' with a bill of entry generated late due to a system error, resulting in a change in customs duty rate from nil to 50%. The petitioner sought re-assessment under Notification No.50/17 but was not acted upon, leading to a writ petition.2. The respondent argued based on Section 15 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the duty rate applicable is that on the date of bill of entry presentation. The court considered the amendment in Section 46 post-2011, allowing electronic bill of entry presentation, and the lack of defined terms like 'presented' in the Act.3. The court referred to a circular emphasizing relief for importers due to system faults and the principle of 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit'. Despite the counter's denial, the court found the petitioner filed details on time, holding the system error responsible and directing re-assessment under the previous duty rate.4. Relying on Section 15, the court quashed the impugned bill, ordering re-assessment under the earlier duty rate, and directed immediate release of goods due to their perishable nature. The judgment allowed the writ petition, with no costs, and closure of connected petitions.