Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.71 seconds)Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Indian Potash Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 27 February, 1991
In this connection, he referred to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 147 of Customs Act and cited the decision of the Tribunal in Indian Potash Limited v. Collector of Customs 1991 (55) E.L.T. 236 wherein it had been held that the appellants therein were not the actual importers but M.M.T.C., the canalising agency was the actual importer. We find that the present case is different on facts. RSTC had filed the Bills of Entry for 84 Chassis in their own name and cleared the goods on payment of duty. They had not filed the Bills of Entry as agents of SLC. There is no indication in the documents that they were only acting as the agents of SLC. Accordingly, the protection applicable to an agent under Section 147(3) of Customs Act is not available to them. They had, as early as 1979, applied to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for Customs Clearance Permit for 256 Chassis. They had received the chassis and used them for handling the containers in the docks area. Such work was carried out by them as per the agreement with SLS and they were getting paid for it. The fact that they were doing so for SLS did not, however, absolve them of their responsibility before the Customs authorities. They did come forward in regard to the 84 Chassis but they should have done so for all the Chassis cleared and used by them for the purpose of handling the containers in Bombay Docks. We do not accept the plea taken by them that they were not aware of the requirement that the Chassis had to be cleared on payment of duty and that they were guided by SLS who in turn, had a bonafide belief that the Chassis which were for use and ultimate re-export were not liable to duty. This plea is not acceptable as SLS had imported 115 Chassis through Cochin Port and had them cleared on payment of duty which were being used there. Duty has correctly been demanded from RSTC under the impugned order. If the agreement between the two companies provides for SLS to compensate RSTC for the payment of any duties or charges it is for them to take up the matter with SLS for such appropriate compensation.
Section 147 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Government Of India vs Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals Madras ... on 20 July, 1989
15. As regards the chassis not declared at all and not covered by any Bill of Entry, we take note of the submissions on behalf of SLS in the hearing as well as the statement of Mr. Blackman before the Customs Officer accepting the fact of non payment of duty. Where no Bill of Entry was filed and no assessment made and the goods had been removed without payment of duty, the starting point of limitation in terms of relevant date is not referred to in Section 28 of the Act. It does not mean that in such cases there is no provision for recovering the duty not paid. The Supreme Court had held in Government of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 that in the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case. In this case, the fact of import of the chassis and their removal and use without declaration and payment of duty has been established. The non payment of duty was planned and deliberate. There was wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. Hence we hold that the plea of limitation fails. The duty should be limited to differential duty after adding $ 100 per chassis towards freight and 1-1/8% towards insurance for the 84 chassis for which Bills of Entry had been filed and duty paid on declared value. Full duty is, however, leviable on 100 chassis which had been imported and removed without payment of duty on a value per chassis of $ 1000 + $ 700 refurbishing + $ 200 freight + 1-1/8% insurance. Depending upon the period of use and the fact of their re-export being established by the appellants, the Collector should allow the drawback condoning the non filing of drawback Shipping Bills at the appropriate time and following the required procedure.
Section 74 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
1