ORDER
D.C. Mandal Member (T)
1. In his letter dated 28-4-1990 ad-dressed to the Assistant Registrar, Special Bench ‘A’ of this Tribunal, Shri P. Champalal, Proprietor of Sha Poosaji Mangilal requested to decide the matter on merits. We have, therefore, gone through the records of the case and have heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned SDR for the respondents.
2. The vessel carrying the goods imported by the appellants arrived on 28-2-1982, on which date the rate of basic customs duly was 40% ad valorem. Entry inward to the vessel was granted by the Customs authorities on 2-3-1982 when the rate of duty was 60% ad valorem. The appellants claimed assessment at the lower rate of duty on the ground that the duty prevailing on the date of arrival of the vessel was applicable. This contention was not accepted by the lower authorities and hence the present appeal before us.
3. The learned SDR has argued that the issue is squarely covered by the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts. He has cited Supreme Court judgment reported in 1989 (43) ELT 189 (S.C.) in the case of Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.)Ltd. v. Union of India and Calcutta High Court’s judgment reported in 1988 (33) ELT 12 (Cal.) in the case of Anantpur Textile Limited v. Collector of Customs and others.
4. In the order-in-original No. S 25/4335/82 dated 6-10-1982, the Assistant Collector of Customs has stated that the appellants filed the Bill of Entry for clearances of the goods in question on 25-2-1982 and the vessel carrying the goods arrived on 28-2-1982 at 9.10 A.M. The B/E was filed on prior entry basis. In last paragraph of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals), it has been stated that entry inward to the vessel was given on 2-3-1982. With this factual information, we are to decide whether the rate of duty prevailing on 28-2-1982 should be applied or the rate of duty prevailing on 2-3-1982 is applicable.
5. Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :-
“15. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods. – (1) The rate of duty, and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force, –
(a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46,on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section;
(b) in the case of goods cleared from the warehouse under Section 68, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse;
(c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty :
Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post.”
In the case of Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. (supara), the Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of prior entry and entry inward and held that the date of entry inward is the dale when the entry inward is made in the customs register and not the actual entry of the vessel. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that Section 15 of the Customs Act is valid. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case is that the rate of duty prevailing on the date of entry inward of the vessel is applicable to the imported goods under Section 15 of the Customs Act. In this connection, paragraphs 14 & 15 of the said judgment are reproduced below for ready reference :-
“14. In Omega Insulated Cable Co., (India) Limited v. The Collector of Customs, Madras (Writ Appeal No. 537 of 1969 decided by the Hon’ble Kailasam and Paul, JJ. on 9 July, 1975) the Madras High Court addressed itself to the question whether the words in Section 15(1) (a) of the Act, viz. ”date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported” mean “the actual entry of the vessel inwards or the date of entry in the register kept by the department permitting the entry inwards of the vessel”. The learned judges examined the corresponding provisions of the earlier statute and after comparing the provisions of Section 15 with those of Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the amendments made from time to time, held that the date of entry inward for the purpose of Section 15(l)(a) and the proviso thereto is the date when the entry is made in the customs register.
15. We have considered the matter carefully and given due heed to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners founded, inter alia, on the provisions of the Sea Customs Act and the amendment made in Section. 16 of the Customs Act and we are of opinion that the view taken by the Madras High Court in Omega-Insulated Cable Co. Ltd. (Supra) represents the correct view. The amendment made in Section. 16 of the Act appears to have been made by way of clarification and,, in our opinion, does not detract from the conclusion that “the date of entry inwards of the vessel” is the date recorded as such in the Customs register. In the present case, “the date of inwards entry” is mentioned as 31 July, 1981. In the absence of anything else, we may take it that the entry was recorded on that itself. Accordingly the rate of import duty and the tariff valuation shall be that in force on 31 July, 1981. The contention of the petitioners that the rate of import duty and tariff valuation will be that ruling on 11 July, 1981 cannot be sustained and is rejected.”
6. The issue came up for consideration before Calcutta High Court in the case of Anantpur Textile Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the rate of duty as prevalent on the date of presentation of B/E was applicable but if the date of “entry inwards” of the ship takes place after presentation of B/E, the rate of customs duty in force on the date the “entry inwards” is granted to the vessel would be attracted under Section 15(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with its proviso.
7. In this connection, Supreme Court judgment, reported in 1979 (4) ELT (J-241) in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen and Others is also relevant. In the said case, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Section 15(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the rate of duty, rate of exchange, and the tariff valuation applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the warehoused goods were removed from the warehouse.
8. In the light of the above discussions, we held that the rate of duty prevailing on 2-3-1982 is applicable in this case. We find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.