TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (11) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Nos. 1311 and 1312 both dated August 4, 1954. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. 2. The facts which gave rise to the institution of the suit are as follows : On August 11, 1954, the defendants' Agents M/s. James Finlay and Company presented to the Customs House at Bombay two Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 1311 and 1312 pertaining to two consignments of Indian Manganese Ore to be exported to Baltimore, U.S.A. on board the vessel s.s. Atlantic Wave. On the date of presentation of the shipping Bills, the export of manganese ore was liable to the payment of customs duty as provided under Item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. On August 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the two Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 10502 and 10503 were exported to Baltimore when the ship left the Indian shore on September 18, 1954. 3. On September 6, 1954 i.e. prior to the vessel leaving the Indian shore, the defendants informed the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay by letter annexed as Ex. I to the plaint that the Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 1311 and 1312 presented on August 11, 1954 were withdrawn before the Customs formalities were completed. The defendants called upon the Assistant Collector of Customs to cancel and return the guarantees given in respect of the two Shipping Bills. The plaintiffs became aware of the claim of the defendants that the two Shipping Bills presented on August 11, 1954 were withdrawn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the fresh Shipping Bills, they are not liable for payment of any duty. 4. The plaintiffs, in spite of this correspondence in the year 1954, chose to file the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,18,830/- only on July 18, 1966 on the Original Side of this Court. The plaint merely claims that the Customs House, Bombay accepted the fresh Shipping Bills presented on August 23, 1954 in ignorance of the fact that the same were submitted in respect of the same goods covered by the earlier two Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 1311 and 1312. In the plaint, it is further claimed that the original Shipping Bills which were handed over to the defendants were never returned back to the Customs Department and as the defendants never took any st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Yusuf Abdulla v. R.N. Shukla reported in 72, Bom. L.R. 575 and the decision in the case of Shawhney v. Sylvania and Laxman reported in 77 Bom. L.R. 380 to hold that the chargeability in respect of the levy of customs duty arises when the goods leave the territorial waters of the territorial limits of India. 7. Mr. Advani, learned counsel appearing in support of the Appeal, submitted that the view taken by the learned trial Judge by placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Shawhney v. Sylvania and Laxman reported in 77 Bom. L.R. 380 is not correct and is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal v. P.S. Thrivikraman and another reported in A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh initially the defendants' Agents presented two Shipping Bills bearing Nos. 1311 and 1312 on August 11, 1954, the goods were not exported under the said Shipping Bills. Without entering into the controversy as to whether the original Shipping Bills were retained by the defendants or handed over to the Customs Appraiser when the fresh Shipping Bills were presented, it is clear that the goods were exported under the fresh Shipping Bills presented on August 23, 1954, the duty on which the export was not liable to payment of any customs duty in view of the customs Notification dated August 18,1954. The plain reading of Section 38 of the Act makes it clear that the rate of duty and tariff-valuation applicable to any goods exported shall be the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact that the two earlier Shipping Bills were presented in respect of the same goods is without any substance. The Customs authorities were fully conscious that the defendants had withdrawn the earlier two Shipping Bills and presented fresh two Shipping Bills and that fact was become known to the plaintiffs on September 6, 1954 i.e. long prior to September 18, 1954, the date on which the vessel left the shores of India. In our judgment, as the export was completed under the two Shipping Bills delivered to the Customs House on August 23, 1954, the claim of tlie plaintiffs for payment of duty from the defendants is without any substance and the trial Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on the preliminary issu....