Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(25) The learned counsel for the respondents has led stress on the provisions of section 15 of the Act in support of his contention, that the impungned order under section 25(2) was bad in law for the vice of retrospectivity. The argurfient is that the date of bill of entry in the present case is prior to the passing of the impugned order. According to him, the date of bill of entry is the decisive date. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shawhney v. Sylvania and Laxman, 77, Bombay L.R. 380(2) has held that 'taxable event under the Customs Act, takes place when a ship enters the territorial waters and not When the bill of entry is filed. I am in respectful agreement with the Division Bench. The contention of the respondent is, however, not of much consequence in the interpretation of section 25(2) of the Act. I have already held that the considerations of retroactivity are not relevant for an order under section 25(2) and that in fact, the impugned order is not retrospective in character. In this context I may also refer to the observations of the Board regarding the alleged misrepresentation by the petitioners regarding the date of importation. The learned Member 61 ttift Board has held : "BESIDES,as exemption obtained on misrepresentation of fact made by Dr. Pophale of the appellant institution or organisation regarding filing of bill of entry was void ab initio.