AMBER WOOLLEN MILLS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Amber Woollen Mills, the appellant herein had imported two consignments of Synthetic Rags from USA by the vessel named 'Oriented Minister'. The ship carrying the said goods arrived at Bombay Port on February 10, 1987. The goods were meant for transhipment to the Inland Container Depot (in short 'ICD') at New Delhi. The goods were transhipped from Bombay to Delhi on February 18, 1987 and they arrived at ICD, New Delhi on March 8 and 11, 1987. On February 26, 1987 the appellant presented the Bills of Entry in respect of the two consignments at ICD, New Delhi. Prior to March 1, 1987, the customs duty payable on the goods so imported was @ 80 per cent [40 per cent plus 40 per cent auxiliary]. By notification No. 56/87-CUS dated March 1, 1987 the duty was reduced to 20% (with no auxiliary duty) with effect from March 1, 1987. In respect of the goods which arrived at ICD, New Delhi on March 8, 1987, the appellant claimed the benefit of reduction in duty under notification dated March 1, 1987. The Additional Collector of Customs, by his order dated February 10, 1989 held that since the Bill of Entry was presented on February 26, 1987, the benefit of the reduced duty under the notification dated March 1, 1987 could not be extended and the appellant was liable to pay the duty which was in force on February 26, 1987. The Additional Collector had also passed an order for confiscation of the goods and for payment of redemption fine of Rs. 17,000/- but that part of the order has been set aside by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). In respect of the goods which arrived at ICD, New Delhi on March 1 (8 and 11), 1987, the appellant had paid the duty @ 80% and an application was submitted for refund of the excess amount on the basis of the notification dated March 1, 1987. The said application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs by order dated March 16, 1989 on the ground that the duty on rags upto February 28, 1987 was 40% plus 40% auxiliary and the same was reduced to 20% plus auxiliary nil with effect from March 1, 1987 and that the claim for refund was not admissible since the Bill of Entry had been presented on February 26, 1987. The said order passed by the Assistant Collector was set aside in appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) by order dated July 3, 1989 on the ground that the cumulative effect of S. 15 read with S. 55 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is that in a transhipment case, the date of Entry will be the date when the goods are received, off-loaded at the port of destination (in the present case, ICD, New Delhi) and the rate of duty chargeable on the said goods was 20% and not 80% as charged.

(2.) Two appeals were filed before the Tribunal, one by the appellant against the order of Additional Collector of Customs dated February 10, 1989 and the other by Revenue against the order of the Collector, Customs (Appeals) dated July 3, 1989. Both the appeals have been disposed of by the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated November 27, 1990. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and has set aside the order dated July 3, 1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the appeal filed by the appellant the order of Additional Collector of Customs dated February 10, 1989 was affirmed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the duty being payable @ 80%. It was held that rate of duty prevailing prior to March 1, 1987, i.e. 80% would be applicable because the Bills of Entry as well as the entry inwards of the vessel were both prior to March 1, 1987. An application for rectification was submitted before the Tribunal by the Collector of Customs. It was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated December 15, 1991 and the last four lines of para 7 of the order were substituted.

(3.) Civil Appeal Nos. 2205-06 of 1991 have been filed against the judgment of the Tribunal dated November 27, 1990 and Civil Appeal No. 8358 of 1995 has been filed against the order dated December 5, 1991.