TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001 have been modified from time to time by Government by way of amending notifications. As per Notification No. 50/2013-Cus(N.T) dated 26.04.2013, the tariff value was increased from USD 449 per 10 gms to USD 472 per 10 gms. Admittedly, the appellants discharged their duty applying the tariff value @449 USD per 10 gms on the date on which Bill of Entries were presented, whereas, the Department felt that notification applicable on that date would be Notification No. 50/2013- Cus(N.T), in respect of Bill of Entry no. 9961274 and no. 9971190 filed on 26.04.2013 which provided for Tariff Value @ 472 USD and for the Bill of Entry No. 2286340 filed on 31.05.2013, Department felt that Notification No. 57/2013-Cus(N.T) dated 31.05.2013 raising the tariff value from 440 USD per 10gms to 459 USD per 10gms would be applicable to the consignment. Demand for differential duty on account of upward revision of Tariff Value was raised on the appellant and confirmed on adjudication. Appellants are in appeal against this order (impugned order). 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has mainly relied on the information received by them under RTI from CPIO of Government of India Press and another in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on No. 57/2013 is concerned, the notification has been uploaded by the Department on same day i.e. on 31.05.2013 but only after 6 pm, whereas, they had filed the Bill of Entry and it was self assessed much before 6 pm. Therefore, as per the settled legal position, time of filing of Bill of Entry would determine the applicability of Tariff Value. Since, in this case, the relevant notification was prevailing and revised notification uploaded only after 6pm, therefore they have discharged duty on the prevailing tariff value itself and not on revised Tariff Value. 4. On the other hand, Learned AR has reiterated observations and finding of Adjudicating Authority and invited our attention to Para 21.1, wherein, the Commissioner had observed that another party namely Corporation Bank had imported gold by adopting the correct tariff value in terms of Section 17 of the Customs Act 1962, whereas, the appellant had not applied the correct tariff value. Commissioner has also observed that the appellant themselves discharged the correct tariff value in respect of Bill of Entry dated 01.06.2013 under Notification No. 57/2013 dated 31.05.2013 which was in effect from 31.05.2013 in respect of imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 3-8-2001 did not acquire the elements of operativeness and enforceability on 3-8-2001 and hence additional duty imposed by notification could not be levied on 3-8-2001 and hence petitioners are entitled to succeed on this ground." In this regard, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had, interalia, while deciding the applicability of notification held that the date of actual publication of the notification in the Gazette will be the date on which the effect of the such notification can be given. Essentially, this judgment justifies that merely issuing of notification by the Government would not make it effective unless it is brought to the notice by way of publication through Government press in the official Gazette or by any other means and in this case admittedly the publication of the said 2 notifications have not taken place on the date of issue of the notification by the Department. In fact, going by the Department's own stand itself, Notification No. 50/2013 was published at a much later date on their website and though in the case of Notification No. 57/2013, it was published on the same day, but it was uploaded on the website after 6 pm. 7. Similar issue as to what wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd. Since, in this case, there is nothing on record that Bill of Entry filed 31.05.2013 was filed after 6 pm, therefore, it is to be presumed that it has been filed before 6 pm and therefore relying on the ratio of G.S. Chatha Rice Mills (supra) etc., the prevailing rate @ 440 USD as per Notification No. 50/2013 dated 21.05.2013 will be applicable for determination of the tariff value and duty thereon. 8. It is now a settled law that a notification would be effective from the date of publication or when it is brought to the notice of people by way of offer for sale of notification/gazette or by way of any other means like uploading on Official Website etc. On all these parameters, unless otherwise specifically indicated in the notification itself in exercise of relevant statutory power by the Competent Authority, the existing/old notifications could be considered as effective on the date on which Bill of Entries were filed. Moreover, this is a case of RMS clearance and self assessment where the system itself would have applied revised tariff Value, which admittedly was not done in the present case. In fact, the revised Tariff rate was available in system with effect from 01.06.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they have approached CPIO, New Delhi under RTI Act seeking information of uploading the relevant notification on E Gazette; that notification No. 50/2013-Cus was uploaded on 06.06.2013 and offered for sale on 28.05.2013 and similarly notification No. 57/2013-Cus was uploaded on 18.06.2013 and offered for sale on 05.06.2013 and as such these notifications were not available on public domain on the dates of filing of Bills of entry and hence they have correctly paid duty. This argument is not correct in as much as the notification No. 57/2013-Cus dt: 31.05.2013 was very much available in Press Information Bureau, being one of the information centres under Government of India. Further they filed Bills of entry under section 17 under self assessment. Hence they ought to have confirmed the tariff value and rate of duty and other details before self assessing their Bill of entry under Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Assuming that for discussion sake, if at all they were genuinely not aware of the increase in tariff value by such Notification at the time of filing of Bill of Entry, nothing had prevented them to pay the differential duty, once they have realized, that very eveni....