1987 (4) TMI 87 - HC - Customs

Customs duty challenge dismissed: Duty liability upon bill of entry presentation

The court dismissed all four writ petitions challenging the imposition of customs duty on imported goods under an amended customs notification. The court ... Customs - Rate of duty - Pulses Issues:Writ petitions filed for mandamus against levying customs duty on imported goods under Customs Notification No. 40 of 1987.Analysis:1. The writ petitioner, an importer of pulses, challenged the customs duty imposed on goods imported under the amended Customs Notification No. 40 of 1987. The petitioner imported 153 M.T. of Dun Peas from Australia, and the Customs authorities sought to assess duty based on the new notification.2. The petitioner argued that the earlier Notification No. 129 of 1976, which granted exemption from duty, should apply as it was in force when the import orders were placed. The petitioner contended that lack of notice regarding the new notification absolved them from duty liability, citing legal precedents like Clements v. County of Devon Insurance Committee and R.H.C. Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Aco. Officer.3. The petitioner further claimed that the new notification discriminated against Tamil Nadu, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. They argued for a broad interpretation of the term 'import' and invoked cases like Excise Commissioner v. Prem Jeet Singh Gujral and Stock v. FrankJones (Tipton) Ltd. to support their position.4. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 2(3 and 15(1)(a), to determine the date for duty assessment. It emphasized that duty liability arises upon bill of entry presentation, not upon the ship's arrival in territorial waters, as established in previous judgments like K. Jamal Co. v. Union of India and M. Jamal Company v. U.O.I.5. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the necessity of notice, violation of Article 14, and the application of legal doctrines like estoppel. It cited precedents such as Jain Shudh Vanaspathi Ltd. v. Union of India and Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. G. Dass & Co. to support its conclusion.6. Ultimately, the court dismissed all four writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and upholding the customs duty assessment based on the date of bill of entry presentation.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, statutory provisions, and precedents considered by the court in resolving the issues raised in the writ petitions.