Imported vessels and bill of entry compliance: statutory definition of goods prevails over exemption claims and practice.

A bill of entry under the Customs Act was treated as a mandatory administrative requirement and not a civilly prejudicial demand merely because it was directed to be filed. An imported vessel was held to fall within the statutory definition of "goods", so section 46 applied. Possible customs duty exemption, the vessel's ocean-going character, and contemporaneous practice did not displace the statutory obligation at the threshold; those matters were relevant only at assessment or clearance. Selective non-enforcement in other cases did not create a right to avoid compliance, and no Article 14 violation was established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a direction to file a bill of entry under section 46 of the Customs Act could be challenged as causing civil consequences; (ii) whether an imported vessel falls within the definition of "goods" so as to attract section 46; (iii) whether alleged exemption from customs duty or the vessel's character as an ocean-going vessel dispenses with the obligation to file a bill of entry; and (iv) whether selective insistence on filing a bill of entry was discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether a direction to file a bill of entry under section 46 of the Customs Act could be challenged as causing civil consequences

Analysis: The filing of a bill of entry was treated as an administrative step that did not by itself create liability or obligation. The challenge was therefore directed against a demand that was considered innocuous and not shown to cause any legal prejudice merely by its making.

Conclusion: The challenge on the footing of civil consequences failed and the direction to file the bill of entry was held not to warrant interference.

Issue (ii): whether an imported vessel falls within the definition of "goods" so as to attract section 46

Analysis: Section 2(22) of the Customs Act expressly included vessels within "goods", while section 2(9) separately defined "conveyance" to include a vessel. The Court held that the statutory scheme did not exclude a vessel imported as a vessel from the ambit of "goods"; the provisions relied on from Chapters VI, VII and VIII did not alter that plain meaning.

Conclusion: An imported vessel was held to be "goods" for purposes of section 46, and the bill of entry was required.

Issue (iii): whether alleged exemption from customs duty or the vessel's character as an ocean-going vessel dispenses with the obligation to file a bill of entry

Analysis: The obligation to file a bill of entry was held to be independent of whether duty would ultimately be leviable or whether an exemption might later be available. Questions about ocean-going character and exemption were held to be matters for assessment and clearance after the bill of entry was filed, not grounds to waive the statutory requirement at the threshold. References to contemporaneous administrative practice could not override the plain language of section 46.

Conclusion: Exemption from duty and ocean-going character did not dispense with the obligation to file a bill of entry.

Issue (iv): whether selective insistence on filing a bill of entry was discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Analysis: The Court held that failure to enforce a statutory obligation in other cases could not be treated as a ground to claim equality in illegality. Since section 46 applied to all such imports, non-enforcement against others did not create a right in favour of the petitioners to avoid compliance.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was established.

Final Conclusion: The statutory requirement to file a bill of entry for the imported vessel was upheld, the writ petition was not sustainable, and the appellate challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly includes a vessel within "goods", an imported vessel is subject to the bill of entry requirement, and neither possible duty exemption nor contemporaneous administrative practice can override the clear language of the charging and procedural provisions.

---