Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sunshine Metal & Alloys Industries Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Customs, Kandla on 26 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(139)ELT130(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. In this case the appellants are aggrieved by denial of extension of benefit of exchange rate or rate of duty prevailing on 16/11.1988 which is the date on which the bill of entry was filed/presented by them. The benefit has been denied holding as under:
"It is seen that the importers had presented Bills of Entry on 16.11.1988 covering the goods. However, it is also noticed that the goods had already been seized in September, 1988. In view of this, their attempt to file the Bs/E after the goods were placed under seizure had no meaning, as the goods could not have been released at that time. Hence, the Customs House was right in refusing to note the Bills of Entry. Therefore, the benefit of the exchange rate or rate of duty prevailing on that day cannot be extended to the importers on the basis of the Bs/E which they attempted to file."
2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nandkani, learned counsel and the learned DR.
3. There is no dispute that the bill of entry had been presented on 16.11.1988. The fact that the goods had already been seized does not impinge upon the right of the importers to present the bill of entry and it is immaterial whether presentation of bill of entry would enable them to get the releases of the goods. The fact remains that title of the goods remained with the importers because the goods had only been seized. It would be a different matter if the gods had not only been seized but also confiscated, with option to redeem and the period for redemption has expired. In such a situation the importer would not be the owner of the goods, but the title of the goods would have vested with the Government. A reading of the language of the Section 14 ,25 and 46 of the Customs Act make it amply clear that the what is relevant is the date of presentation of the bill of entry. Going by this we hold that the benefit of exchange rate or rate of duty prevailing on 16/11/1988 is available to the importer and accordingly set aside the finding of the Commissioner that such benefit is not available.
4. The appeal is allowed as above. Consequential relief due to the appellants.