1986 (9) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)]. - The respondent, M/s. T. Gulam Mahamood Assadi and Sons presented shipping bill on 1-9-1981 for export of Coffee per S.S. Amado. On 2-9-1981 the shipping bill was amended to substitute the name of S.S. Macol Ace in the place of S.S. Amado. The duty was paid on 5-9-1981. The goods were shipped ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or rejection of the claim is as follows : "There is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 to the effect that for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act, the date in which a shipping bill is amended shall be considered as the date on which the shipping bill is presented. The shipping bill in this case was filed on 1.9.1981 and duty on Coffee was abolished only with effect from 10.9.1981. The relev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected was liable to be refunded. 3.  In the appeal the Collector questions this conclusion of the Appellate Collector on the ground (vide grounds 4 to 7 in the grounds of appeal) that the provisions of Section 16(1) do not cover cases where the name of the vessel declared originally in the shipping bill was amended subsequently and that the amendment would not necessarily amount to present....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and since by then export duty had been levied the exporter was liable to pay the said duty. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and observed that Section 16 provided only for one fictional date that being the date of grant of entry outwards if the shipping bill had been presented before that date. The Supreme court rejected the contention of the Department about another fictional date, tha....