ASOKE EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are a firm of importers. In or about July, 1951, the Petitioners' firm imported 100 cases of Japanese art silk yarn 120 Diafuki brand, per s.s. "Tairea" from Kobe in Japan to Calcutta. In respect of such imported goods the owner has to state in his bill of entry the "real value" of the goods together with other particulars mentioned in Section 29 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878). Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act runs as follows:

(2.) The goods arrived in the port of Calcutta in or about the first week of July, 1951. The Petitioners in their bill of entry gave the "real value" on the basis of the invoice price, that is to say, in terms of Section 30(b). This was accepted by the appraiser who assessed the goods on that footing and the Petitioners as owner of the goods proceeded to clear the same and took them away, as they were entitled to do, under Sections 86 and 87 of the Sea Customs Act.

(3.) The appraisement was done on or about July 9, 1951, and the goods were taken away shortly thereafter. Under Section 36 of the Sea Customs Act, the "real value" which is stated in the bill of entry can no longer be amended after the goods had been removed from the Customs house. On or about October 1, 1951, the Petitioners wrote to the assistant collector of customs for appraisement, Calcutta, to the effect that although the duty was paid as per invoice value, it ought to have been made out as per market value, as it was done in Bombay, and therefore the excess duty paid ought to be refunded. The assistant collector rejected this prayer. An appeal was preferred before the collector of customs who by his order, dated February 29, 1952, rejected the appeal. This rule was taken out on September 10, 1952.