TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singapore for the supply of MSCR defective sheets or coils on 30th May, 1984. The foreign supplier shipped the material in three consignments and the goods arrived at the Bombay Port on 12th June, 1984. The clearing agent of the petitioner filed bills of entry on 30th July, 1984 for warehousing under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act', and the same was allowed. The goods were bonded on 7th August, 1984. It may be mentioned that the rate of duty on that day was 60% + 40% + Rs. 650 per M.T. and 10% C.V.D. The total duty on the consignment was assessed as Rs. 26,20,109.55. 3. On 21st August, 1984, the petitioner's clearing agent filed six bills of entry for ex-bond clearance. However, the bills of entry were returned with the remark that "please obtain no objection from the income tax". This was endorsed on 24th August, 1984. The petitioner states that thereafter he came to know that the income tax authorities had imposed ban under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner asserted that he was ever ready and willing, rather was anxious, to get the material on payment of the then prevailing customs duty. However, due to circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section; (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty : Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post." Learned Attorney General laid emphasis on the expression "actually removed" in clause (b) of Section 15(1) of the Act. Our attention was also drawn to Section 16 of the Act which reads as under : "S. 16. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods. - (1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force - (a) in the case of goods entered for export under Section 50, on the date on which the proper officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the goods were removed from the warehouse after the amending Ordinance had come into force, the customs authorities and the Central Government were right in taking the view that the rate of duty applicable to the imported goods should be determined according to the law prevalent on the date these were actually removed from the warehouse. 7. Mr. Garg, appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand contended before us that his client was willing indeed to pay the duty when the goods crossed the customs barrier and were in the process of being cleared, but could not be cleared because of the prohibitory orders of the Income Tax Department under Section 102 of the Customs Act. In that light, it was not possible, Mr. Garg contended, for the Income Tax Department to claim enhanced duty due to facts which were not for the fault of the petitioner. In view of the language used in Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, it is difficult to accept this contention specially in the light of the expression used `actually removed'. It must be accepted that the probibitory orders, arbitrary or not, would postpone the date of clearance and as such would postpone the determination of the duty. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination of questions of law as well as questions of fact without taking any resort to the provisions of the Act, it is not permissible to move this Court on the theoretical basis that there is breach of the fundamental right. Whenever a person complains and claims that there is a violation of law, it does not automatically involve breach of fundamental right for the enforcement of which alone Article 32 of the Constitution is attracted. It appears that the facts of this nature require elaborate procedural investigation and this Court should not be moved and should not entertain on these averments of the Article 32 of the Constitution. This position is clearly well settled, but sometimes we are persuaded to accept that an allegation of breach of law is an action in breach of fundamental right. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1963 (1) SCR 778], where this Court observed at p. 842 of the report as under : "In my opinion, the correct answer to the two questions which have been referred to this larger Bench must be in the negative. An order of assessment made by an authority under a taxing statute w....