The availability of an efficacious remedy through appeal is emphasized, and the court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within four weeks without rejection on the ground of limitation.

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs : ( a) A declaration that the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994 [annexure-B1] is unconstitutional; (b) (i) A direction to respondents, from undertaking and/or finalising assessments in terms of the public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994; (ii) From assessing to customs duty on the crude oil imported by the petitioner Company on the basis of Ullage Survey Report; (c) (i) For quashing the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994. (ii) For quashing the order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] passed by the second respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner imports crude oill of different varieties. For the purpose of assessment of customs duty, the petitioner filed Bills of Entry on the basis of the quantity measured at shore tank (the quantity that is received in the shore tank on the landmass, after discharge from the ship ). The Customs Authorities have assessed the quantity on the basis of the Ullage Survey report prepared at the port of destination, when the ship enters the territorial waters before discharge of cargo on the landmass, and issued show cause notices in regard to 10 items of cargo, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the difference between the duty paid by petitioner (on the basis of shore tank measurement) and duty payable (on the basis of Ullage survey Report) should not be recovered as short levy due. After considering the objections and hearing, the second respondent has passed an order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] confirming the demand for Rs. 5,16,97,312/- being the differential amount of customs duty, on the crude oil imported by petitioner.

( 3 ) THE third respondent has issued Public Notice No. 3/1994 dated 10-3-1994 laying down the procedure for determining duty liability in respect of liquid cargo. The said Public Notice states that duty liability will be on the basis of the Ullage Report prepared before dischargring the liquid cargo from the vessel as held by the Bombay High Court in its decision rendered in 1986.

( 4 ) AT the out-set, the learned senior CGSC appearing for the respondents pointed out that the order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] is an appealable order and an appeal lies to the commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) and petitioners can urge all the contentions in regard to the order dated 3-6-1999 and the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994 before the Appellate Authority. He also pointed out that a further appeal is available to CEGAT and thereafter an appeal to the Supreme Court and in view of the efficacious alternative remedies so available, this Court should not entertain this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the Appellate Authority will be bound by the decision of the Tribunal in Cochin Refineries Ltd v. Commissioner of customs, Cochin 1999 (63 )ECC318 (Tri ), 1999 (105 )ELT108 (Tri-Chennai ), wherein the CEGA Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, has decided the question which is the subject matter of the dispute, by holding that importation of goods is complete as soon as vessel carrying the cargo enters the territorial waters of India and does not postpone till goods are actually off-loaded on the landmass of India and therefore duty liability arises on the basis of the Ullage Suryey Report prepared at the port of discharge. He, therefore, contended that the appellate Authority, being bound by the said decision will decide the matter against the petitioner without examining the contentions of petitioner on merits and therefore appeal is not an efficacious remedy.

( 6 ) THE Madras and Gujarat High Courts have taken the view that the quantity imported is the quantity measured after landing on the landmass, (that is the quantity measured in the shore tank) vide Prabhat Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. v. UOI, 1982 (10 ) ELT203 (Guj ), M. Jamal Co. v. Union of India, 1985 (6 )ECC202 (Mad ), 1985 (21 ) ELT369 (Mad ) and Lucas TV

Click Here to Read the rest of this document