Warehouse clearance timing and customs duty rate: a non-statutory circular could not defeat the importer's claim to earlier clearance.

A non-statutory circular advancing warehouse payment and delivery closing hours on the budget day had no legal force because no valid source of authority was shown, so it could not justify refusal of clearance. On the facts, the goods were treated as cleared on 28 February 1983 because customs duty had been paid, the bills of entry had been presented and noted, and the importers were ready to pay warehousing charges; the delay was attributable to the warehouse authorities. The Department's reliance on the bank discharge certificate was rejected, and the importers were held entitled to the prevailing duty rate rather than the enhanced rate from 1 March 1983.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a circular advancing the warehouse monetary-transaction and delivery closing hours on the budget day had legal sanction and could justify refusal of clearance; (ii) whether, on the facts, the goods were to be treated as cleared on 28 February 1983 so as to attract the then-prevailing customs duty and not the enhanced rate from 1 March 1983.

Issue (i): Whether a circular advancing the warehouse monetary-transaction and delivery closing hours on the budget day had legal sanction and could justify refusal of clearance.

Analysis: The circular was only produced as a cyclostyled copy and no satisfactory legal source of power, authority, or binding mandate was shown for altering the working hours by one hour. The Court held that a mere circular could not override the statutory scheme or validly curtail the time otherwise available for payment and delivery. The refusal to accept warehousing charges and to permit delivery on that basis was therefore unsupported in law.

Conclusion: The circular had no legal force and could not justify refusal of clearance.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the goods were to be treated as cleared on 28 February 1983 so as to attract the then-prevailing customs duty and not the enhanced rate from 1 March 1983.

Analysis: The customs duty had already been paid at the prevailing rate, the bills of entry had been presented and noted, and the Petitioners were ready and willing to pay the warehousing charges. The delay in accepting payment and effecting delivery was attributable to the warehouse authorities, not to the Petitioners. The Court also held that the statutory provisions governing clearance from warehouse did not support the Department's reliance on the bank discharge certificate to defeat the claim. Accordingly, the goods were to be treated as cleared on 28 February 1983.

Conclusion: The Petitioners were entitled to clearance on 28 February 1983 and liable only to the duty then prevailing.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the Petitioners obtained declaratory and consequential relief, and the enhanced customs duty demand failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-statutory circular cannot validly curtail the time for payment and delivery of warehoused goods so as to deprive an importer of the duty rate prevailing on the date the goods should have been cleared when the importer was ready and willing to comply within the lawful time.

---