BIPIN M PUJARA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this application is the date from which a notification issued in a Gazette comes into effect.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter, which is admitted, is as follows: 602 and 900 pieces of spherical roller bearing over 60 mm diameter of Russian origin were shipped from Dubai on August 20, 1996. A shipping manifest was filed by the owner of the shipping, Marine Containers Service India Pvt. Ltd., after the same was handed over to them by shipping company Natvar Parikh Industries Limited. The two bills bearing entry Nos. 0711 and 0732 were filed by the clearing agent on September 10, 1996 and presented before the concerned appraiser for assessment on September 11, 1996. On September 11, 1996 the vessel Tiger Creek in which the aforementioned assignment was being transshipped obtained permission at about 16.25 hrs. At 5.30 P.M. the Finance Bill No. 2 of 1996 was presented wherein a proposal was made to raise customs duty on ball or roller bearing from 25 per cent + 2 per cent C.V. 15 per cent to 10 per cent + Rs. 80/- per kg. and C.V. 15 per cent. On September 12, 1996 the berthing of the said vessel took place. The respondents assessed the customs duty payable in respect of the aforementioned two shipments to Rs. 18,33,723 and Rs. 6,94,147 respectively in place of the earlier rate Rs. 2,41,575.53 and Rs. 2,01,132.79. It appears that the petitioner sent a letter on March 17, 1997 to the Supervising Officer, Government of India asking, inter alia, as to when the said notification was published in the Gazette of India and on what date the said Gazette was made available from its counter for sale to the public. The petitioner in reply to his aforementioned enquiry received a letter dated April 28, 1997 from the Supervising Officer, Government of India wherein it was revealed that the Gazette bearing No. 289 published in Part II, Section 3(1), dated September 11, 1996 were received in the depot on January 16, 1997 and were placed on sale on the same date. It is not in dispute that the customs duty would be assessed in terms of the prevailing duty.

(3.) It is also not in dispute that the subject-matter of duty is covered by Section 25(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the aforementioned Gazette was made available for sale only on January 16, 1997, the respondents erred in assessing the customs duty payable on such shipments to such consignment in terms of the Notification dated September 11, 1996. In support of his aforementioned contention strong reliance has been placed on the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal, Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. and Garware Nylons Limited v. Collector of Central Excise.