SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agarwal, Appellant
Versus
P. S. Thrivikraman and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2137 of 1968, D/- 16-3-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Soli Sorabji, Senior Advocate, M/s. P. C. Bhartari and B. D. Bharucha, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, (Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji Co., with him), for appellant ; Mr. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General of India, (Mr. Gobind Das, Advocate, and Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Customs Act, 1962 – Section 50,28,16(1) and 39 - Obtaining export licence - Pay export duty - Appellant filed shipping bill in triplicate before Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for purpose of obtaining export licence in respect metric tonnes of iron ore - Export licence was granted to appellant - Company agents of vessel made an application to the Assistant Collector of Customs, for the grant of entry outwards to said vessel to load iron ore - Assistant Collector of Customs, made an order granting entry outwards to the said vessel and also gave permission to ship cargo on board said vessel - Whether shipment and export of iron ore by appellant became liable to said duty introduced – Held, Under provisions of Section 38 of 1878 Act Customs Authorities had power to apply rate in force on date of the arrival of the vessel - Under Section 16 of the 1962 Act it is not permissible to do so - Statute does not contain such a provision - Section 16 of the 1962 Act speaks of fictional date only in relation to order of date of entry outwards of the vessel - In the present case, order of entry outwards of the vessel was made -Therefore, the Customs Authorities in the impugned order acted without jurisdiction in imposing duty on export by holding that date of entry outwards of vessel was date "when vessel arrived - For foregoing reasons appellant is entitled to an order cancelling notice by which Customs Authorities demanded duty from appellant - Order of the Judicial Commissioner is set aside - There will be a writ setting aside the notice and an order forbearing the respondents from taking any steps or proceedings pursuant to notice - There will also be an order quashing the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs which gave effect to the notice and held appellant liable to pay export duty - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
RAY, J. :- This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 5 April, 1968 of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji.
2. The appellant challenged the levy of export duty of Rs. 98044 on 980440 metric tonnes of iron ore shipped on S. S. Ardenode on 3 August, 1966 at the rate of Rs. 10 per metric tonne.
3. The appellant on 26 July, 1966 filed shipping bill in triplicate before the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Panaji, Goa for the purpose of obtaining export licence in respect of 10,160 metric tonnes of iron ore. On 28 July, 1966 export licence was granted to the appellant. On 30 July, 1966 M/s. Hiralal & Co. agents of the vessel S. S. Ardenode made an application to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Marmagoa for the grant of entry outwards to the said vessel to load iron ore. On 30 July, 1966 the Assistant Collector of Customs, Marmagoa made an order granting entry outwards to the said vessel S. S. Ardenode and also gave permission to ship cargo on board the said vessel.
4. On 1 August, 1966 the appellant presented to the Customs Authorities under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), shipping bills in triplicate dated 26 July, 1966. The appellant in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act at the foot of the shipping bill subscribed to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of the shipping bills. On 1 August, 1966 the Customs Authorities made these entries on the shipping bill rotation No. 730 Sd/- 1 August, 1966 Let export after examination if necessary Sd/- 1 August, 1966 and E. F. No. 3/1/8/1966 . The abbreviation E.F means Export Fee (Free?). On 2 August, 1966 the Customs Authorities made further endorsements on the shipping bill. These endorsements were P1 as usual and checked des; Inspected the lot-2-barges-checked des ; and Pd in full .
5. On 2 August, 1966 there was a notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4-A of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 amending the second schedule to the Tariff Act. The relevant item in the said schedule introduced by way of amendment is 28 and the name of the article is lumpy iron ore and the rate of duty is Rs. 10 per tonne.
6. The S. S. Ardenode arrived at Marmagoa at 23.20 hours on 2 August, 1966. The vessel arrived at Marmagoa Inner Harbour on 3 August, 1966 at 07.50 hours. The vessel commenced loading the cargo on 3 August, 1966.
7. The Customs Authorities on 28 January, 1967 issued a notice to the appellant notifying that the goods actually shipped by the appellant were subject to export duty at the rate of Rs. 10 per metric tonne and the custom duty amounting to Rs. 98044 which not levied in respect of the consignment was due from the appellant and the appellant was called upon in accordance with Section 28 of the Act as to why the amount should not be recovered from the appellant.
8. The appellant contended before the Customs Authorities that the shipping bill was presented to the Customs Authorities and the entry outwards to the ship S. S. Ardenode was given prior to 2 August, 1966 when no duty was payable in respect of the export of the goods in question. The appellant, therefore, contended that the notification under S. 4-A of the Tariff Act 1934 was not applicable to the consignment and no duty was payable in respect of the export of the goods having regard to the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Customs Act. It may also be stated that the appellant impeached the vires of the notification.
9. The Customs Authorities on 19 April, 1967 held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Act the shipping bill shall be deemed to have been presented at the earliest on 3 August, 1966 when the vessel in question arrived. The export duty was levied with effect from 2 August, 1966. The Customs Authorities therefore held that the appellant was liable to pay the export duty.
10. The appellant impeached the order of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.