Bombay High Court
Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. vs Union Of India on 11 October, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(58)ELT199(BOM)
JUDGMENT Pendse, J.
1. Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel for the petitioner handed over to us, a xerox copy of the public notice dated April 30, 1983, issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Correction Department, Bombay. The public notice brings to the attention of the importers the Notification dated April 16, 1983 issued by the Government of India, rescinding the earlier Notification dated July 30, 1982. Xerox copy is taken on record and marked 'X'.
2. The short question which falls for determination is whether the order of reassessment of duty dated May 12, 1983 by the Customs authority is in accordance with law. The petitioner imported dates and filed Bill of Entry on April 18, 1983. The Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Customs Act had fixed the tariff value for the goods specified in the notification. The duty on the import of dates under the Customs Tariff was 70% ad valorem, but in view of the notification the tariff value was determined at the rate of Rs. 725/- per quintal by assessment order dated April 18, 1983.
The advantage conferred by Notification dated July 30, 1982 was rescinded by Notification dated April 16, 1983 and thereupon the customs authority reassessed the duty payable by order dated May 12, 1983. The order of reassessment is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Notification dated April 16, 1983 rescinding the earlier Notification dated July 30, 1982 was not published till April 1983. Consequently the petitioners were entitled to the advantage of an earlier Notification dated July 30, 1982. Mr. Kantawala placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court reported in 1989 (43) ELT 189 Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India. The decision entirely supports the submission of the learned Counsel. The liability of the petitioners to pay the duty in respect of Bill of Entry dated April 18, 1983 has to be assessed in accordance with the Notification dated July, 30, 1982. Accordingly petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) and (c)(ii) only. It is made clear that the petitioners are liable to pay the loading charges in addition to the duty. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.