2025 (7) TMI 1999

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR, J. This Writ Appeal impugns the judgment dated 01.10.2015 of a learned Single Judge in OP No.25199 of 2001. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The appellant had entered into contracts with suppliers for the supply of RBD Palmolein (Edible Grade). The contracted supplies were shipped under cover of various bills of lading from 04.06.2001 to 14.07.2001. It is not in dispute that the Bills of Entry for warehousing were filed in respect of many consignments, and thereafter, the Bills of Entry for home consumption were also filed for the purposes of clearing the goods for home consumption. The issue raised by the appellant before the writ court was in respect of the tariff value to be a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments by taking only the declared value of US$ 234 per MT, and therefore, there had been a short payment of duty. 3. The stand of the appellant before the writ court was that, on payment of duty on the declared value of the goods as assessed by the proper officer, it had obtained a customs "out of charge order" much prior to 06.08.2001, the date on which the notification No. 36/2001-CUS (NT) fixing the tarrif value of RBD Palmolein at US$ 372 came into force. The appellant argued, therefore, that since the customs "out of charge order" had been obtained prior to the date of the notification, the mere fact that the goods that were stored in the warehouse were removed from the warehouse only on a later date was of no significance. The appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'out of charge' order for home consumption issued by the proper officer in compliance of Section 68 of the Act in respect of the balance quantity of the subject consignment and the licence of the private warehouse stood cancelled before 06.08.2001, the 2 respondent shall pass appropriate orders releasing the bank guarantee/bond for the differential duty amount furnished by the petitioner in terms of the orders of this Court dated 22.08.2001 in I.A.No.41099 of 2001 and that dated 24.08.2001 in I.A.No.41323 of 2001, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment." 5. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 26.06.2025, taking note of the fact that the essential dispute between t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f which has been produced along with I.A No. 2 of 2016 (I.A 1105/2016) dated 30.08.2016 in this Appeal." It is apparent from a perusal of the affidavit that the customs "out of charge order" in respect of the consignments covered by the four Ex- Bond Bills of Entry referred above were all issued on dates well prior to the date of coming into force of the tariff value of US$ 372 per MT. Going by the decision in Priyanka Overseas Pvt Ltd. (Supra) as also the decision in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. (Supra), we find that in respect of the goods covered by the warehousing Bill of Entries filed by the appellant at first instance, the relevant date for the payment of duty would have to be the date on which the customs "out of charge order" was passed. T....