Court dismisses Hungarian Green Peas import petitions, orders payment of customs duty from 1989.

The court dismissed all petitions related to the import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas, ruling that the petitioners are liable to pay customs duty at the rate prevailing in October 1989. The petitioners were ordered to pay the differential duty and exemplary costs, and the respondents were given liberty to encash the bank guarantees provided by the petitioners. The court emphasized that the duty rate is determined by the date of filing the original bill of entry, rejecting claims for reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas.
2. Amendment of Import General Manifest (I.G.M.).
3. Validity of bills of entry and determination of customs duty rates.
4. Allegations of fraud and abuse of process of court.
5. Entitlement to reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas:
All writ petitions pertain to the import of Hungarian Green Peas and/or yellow peas, with the cargo arriving in Bombay prior to 18th October 1989.

2. Amendment of Import General Manifest (I.G.M.):
In Writ Petition No. 3288/89, the original importer, M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills, filed a Bill of Entry on 24th October 1989. After the contract was allegedly canceled, the petitioner, Miss Anjali Shantilal Lunkad, claimed to have purchased the cargo and sought to amend the I.G.M. to reflect her as the importer. The Customs authorities refused the amendment and the fresh bill of entry. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 719/90, the steamer agents' application to amend the I.G.M. to substitute the petitioners, M/s. Agrimpex India Pvt. Ltd., was refused. In Writ Petition No. 71/90, the petitioners, M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills, sought to amend the I.G.M. for six consignments, but the Customs authorities accepted only three bills of entry filed post-1st November 1989.

3. Validity of bills of entry and determination of customs duty rates:
The court emphasized that the rate of duty is determined by the date of presentation of the bill of entry for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. For Writ Petition No. 3288/89, the original bill of entry was filed on 24th October 1989, prior to the new notification, making the petitioner liable to pay the duty rate prevailing on that date. In Writ Petition No. 719/90 and Writ Petition No. 71/90, the bills of entry were presented by the original importers before 1st November 1989. Thus, the rate of duty applicable was the one in force in October 1989.

4. Allegations of fraud and abuse of process of court:
The respondents alleged that a fraud was perpetrated to avail the benefit of the reduced customs duty notification by transferring the cargo to the daughter of a partner of the original importer. The court found the petition to be a gross abuse of the process of court and dismissed it, ordering the petitioner to pay the differential duty and exemplary costs.

5. Entitlement to reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs:
The petitioners in all cases claimed entitlement to the reduced customs duty under Notification No. 263/89-Customs effective from 1st November 1989. However, the court held that the relevant date for determining the rate of duty is the date when the original bill of entry was filed. Since the bills of entry were filed before the notification, the reduced duty was not applicable. The court cited the case of Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India to support the principle that the duty is quantified with reference to the date the bill of entry is first filed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all petitions, ruling that the petitioners are liable to pay customs duty at the rate prevailing in October 1989. The petitioners were ordered to pay differential duty and exemplary costs, and the respondents were given liberty to encash the bank guarantees provided by the petitioners.

Final Orders:
1. Writ Petition No. 3288/89 is dismissed.
2. Writ Petition Nos. 71/90 and 719/90 are dismissed.
3. Rule is discharged.
4. Bank guarantees not to be encashed for two weeks, with petitioners undertaking to keep them alive for at least four weeks.

---