SUNDARAM TEXTILES LIMITED BARING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT T V S BUILDINGS WEST VELI STREET MADURAI 1 Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IMPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions raise identical questions of law and for the purpose of appreciating those questions it is enough if I refer to the facts in W. P. No. 298 of 1979 alone.

(2.) THE writ petition is for issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for the records relating to the Import Department serial No. 000699, dated 13rd December, 1978, of the first respondent, to quash the order passed on 21st January, 1979, by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to release the goods without payment of any duty or additional duty.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. G. Ramaswami is as follows:-THE goods in this case entered the territorial waters of India on 7th December, 1978. THE bill of entry was prepared on 8th December, 1978. It was received by the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs on 13th December, 1978. On 13th December, 1978, the Assistant Collector of Customs who made an endorsement 'p. T. O. K.'On 14th December, 1978 an endorsement was made identifying the consignment as synthetic staple fibre of cellulosic origin (viscose ). On 16th December, 1978 the Assistant Collector of Customs duly made an endorsement'be assessed on P. T. Home consumption. Draw on Duplicate for test. Goods may be released therefore'. On 18th December, 1978 a further endorsement was made duty'forgone'. THE notification which governed the levy of duty on the relevant date was the one, dated 2nd august, 1976, which granted exemption to the goods in question. THE notification, dated 5th January, 1979 to the effect that exemption with regard to additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is only as to that in excess of Rs. 1. 32 is not, therefore, applicable to the present case. Further, the vessel berthed on 4th January, 1979. For this reason also the notification, dated 5th January, 1979, would be inapplicable. THE refusal to permit the warehousing of goods under section 49 of the Customs Act is without jurisdiction. In as much as the ship carrying the goods entered the territorial maters of India on 7th December, 1978 the liability to duty has to be determined on the basis of the notification then in force, according to which no duty or additional duty is leviable. THE compliance with the other requirements and formalities of law which might take some time is only procedural to facilitate the imposition and collection of duty. In support of this submission, learned counsel places reliance on M/s. Sawhney v. M/s. Sylvania and Laxman1, In that case also, notwithstanding the fact that the bill of lading came to be presented later the notification as on the date on which the ship entered the territorial waters was said to apply. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that it is section 92 of the Customs Act which is the charging section, while section 15 will come into play only if a charge arises or in other words where the rate of duty is applicable. THErefore, the date of presentation of bill of lading for the purpose of home consumption as required under section 15 (1) can have no application whatever. THE ratio of this ruling clearly applies to the facts of this case.