CAWASJI BEHRAMJI AND CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as shipchandlers. In the course of the business, the petitioners import consignment of various provisions from abroad, and the goods so imported are supplied as stores to foreign going ships. The goods being meant to be used as ships' stores are not liable to payment of any customs duty.

(2.) Sometime in May, 1979, the petitioners imported consignment of 2400 tins of orange juice and 1200 tins of tomato juice from Australia. The said consignment was sent to India by the petitioners' suppliers by the ship known as "Nedlloyd Lek". On May 10, 1979, the petitioners filed the bill of entry in respect of the said goods with the Customs Department. The quantities mentioned in the said bill of entry were identical with the quantity stated in the bill of lading received by the petitioners from their foreign suppliers. The vessel arrived at Bombay Docks on May 15, 1979 and commenced unloading on May 16, 1979. The petitioners attended the Docks on June 5, 1979 with the Customs officials for the purpose of obtaining an order for clearance for warehousing in respect of the said goods. At the time of inspection, it was noticed that there was shortage in the said consignment and the shortages were noted by the Appraisers of the Customs Department on the reverse of the bill of entry.

(3.) On June 8, 1979, respondent No. 3, the Preventive Officer, incharge of C.B. Bonds, called upon the petitioners to pay the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,058 in respect of the said shortages. The petitioners declined to pay the amount and pointed out that the case stands covered by provisions of Section 13 of the Customs Act and no customs duty was payable in respect of the said shortages. Respondent No. 4, thereupon gave hearing to the petitioners and passed the impugned order on August 29, 1979, directing the petitioners to pay the duty amount of Rs. 1058/-. Respondent No. 4 held that the exemption from customs duty under Section 13 of the Customs Act cannot be granted, because the petitioners have not produced evidence to establish that the goods landed in sound condition or were short-landed. Respondent No. 4 observed that it is not clear whether the imported goods were pilferred after unloading. Respondent No. 4 also held that the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Customs Act are not applicable. The order of respondent No. 4 is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.