TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act bars such re-assessment. 2. The case was heard at length by us on 15-7-1983, 26-7-1983 and 9-8-1983. The facts, in brief, are that Exemption Notification No. 8/79-Cus., dated 5-1-1979 fixed a concessional rate of import duty of Rs. 1.32 per kg. for Viscose Staple Fibre. The appellants imported a consignment of this commodity. They presented a Bill of Entry under Section 46 on 25-9-1979 in anticipation of the arrival of the importing vessel. The proper officer assessed the duty on the consignment at the rate of Rs. 1.32 per kg. The appellants paid the duty so assessed on 9-10-1979. The ship carrying the consignment arrived at Sand Heads at the Port of Calcutta and within the territorial waters of India on 22-10-1979 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a query from the Bench the appellants were not in a position to say whether they had asked for a personal hearing before the Appellate Collector or not. As regards the Bombay High Court judgment referred to above, it was brought to the appellant's notice that there was a recent Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court delivered on 11-5-1983 in civil writ No. 1507/1980 in the case of M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Union of India, 1983 E.L.T. 1688 (Del.) in which Delhi High Court, relying on the earlier Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills, have differed with the Bombay High Court and held that rate of duty applicable to any imported goods had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 15. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the lower authorities upholding demand of duty at the increased rate of Rs. 2.37 per kg. as in force on 6-11-1979 was correct. 5. Availing their right of reply, the appellants stated that it was open to the Department to refrain from making the assessment till entry inwards was given to the vessel. In the alternative, the Department could have made a provisional assessment. If the Department had done that, Sections 15, 27 and 28 of the Act would not become nugatory. But in the present case the Department did neither. Instead, the Department chose to complete the assessment before arrival of the ship. In such a situation, and in the absence of any incorrect statement in the Bill of entry, the prohibition of Section 17(4) appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer. (2) After such examination and testing, the duty, if any leviable on such goods shall, save as otherwise provided in Section 85, be assessed. (3) For the purpose of assessing duty under sub-section (2), the proper officer may require the importer, exporter or any other person to produce any contract, broker's note, policy of insurance, catalogue or other document whereby the duty leviable on the imported goods or export goods, as the case may be, can be ascertained, and to furnish any information required for such ascertainment which it is in his power to produce or furnish, and thereupon the importer, exporter or such other person shall produce such document and furnish such information. (4) Notwithstanding any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry system, so the proviso squarely applied in their case. On the other hand, we notice that Section 17 fixes the sequence of procedural steps for examination and testing of the imported goods (we will omit reference to export goods as it is not relevant for the present case) and assessment of duty thereon and is thus a machinery provision. The section provides for two types of procedures-(1) either the goods may be examined and tested first and then the duty assessed thereon or (2) the goods may be assessed first on the basis of the importer's statement made in the bill of entry and the documents enclosed therewith and examined or tested later. For obvious reasons, the second procedure is subject to the condition that if the examination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pretation which renders other portions of the Act nugatory has to be rejected. Similar is the case with Section 15 insofar as prior entry cases are concerned. Duty assessed before entry inwards of the vessel is only an advance assessment, or a tentative assessment, and assessment proper has to be made only after the vessel is given entry inwards and the rate of duty as applicable to the goods on that date becomes known. It may be that in a great majority of the cases the advance assessment itself may become the final assessment if there is no change in the rate of duty in the meantime. But if there is such a change, the goods have to be re-assessed at the changed rate applicable. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 15 would become redundant. ....