1986 (12) TMI 208 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Customs Duty, Rejects Estoppel Argument

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the superseding notification and rejecting the promissory estoppel argument. It clarified ... Notification in force at relevant time cannot be ignored by the Tribunal or struck down Issues:1. Whether goods entering territorial waters of India at the time of exemption from Customs duty become chargeable to Customs duty upon withdrawal of exemption.2. Whether goods presented for clearance after the withdrawal of exemption are governed by the earlier exemption notification or the superseding notification.3. Interpretation of Sections 12, 13, 15, and 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to exemption notifications and duty liabilities.4. Applicability of promissory estoppel against the Union of India in the issuance of new notifications curtailing exemptions.Analysis:1. The appeals revolve around the issue of Customs duty liability on goods entering India during exemption periods. The first issue concerns goods entering territorial waters during exemption and becoming chargeable upon withdrawal. The second issue involves goods presented for clearance post-exemption withdrawal and determining the applicable notification for Customs duty calculation.2. The appellants argued based on Section 25 of the Customs Act, emphasizing exemptions granted under specific notifications. They contended that goods fully exempt from duty upon entry should not be subject to rate of duty under Section 15. Reference was made to relevant case laws supporting this interpretation.3. The Respondent countered by highlighting the applicability of Section 15 to goods not exempt from additional duty, asserting that the Act's provisions must be considered collectively. They cited precedents and legal interpretations to support the imposition of duty based on the clearance date rather than entry date.4. The Tribunal dismissed appeals where goods entered after the withdrawal of exemption, upholding the validity of the superseding notification. It rejected the promissory estoppel argument, emphasizing the Tribunal's limited scope in granting such relief. The decision aligned with previous rulings and interpretations regarding duty liabilities post-notification changes.5. The judgment clarified the distinction between basic Customs duty and additional duty, emphasizing the uniformity of duty liability under the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and the Supreme Court's interpretation, ensuring consistency in duty calculations based on clearance dates.6. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed based on the Tribunal's interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents, reinforcing the principle of duty liability determination post-notification changes. The decision upheld the application of Customs duty based on the clearance date, in line with established legal principles and judicial interpretations.