Page 170 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

560 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

therefore, request of petitioner for withdrawal of manual bill of entry, pre-
sented for regularisation, ought to be considered, needs no countenance - Sec-
tion 17 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
Valuation (Customs) - Rates of duty and tariff valuation - Shipping
vessel imported in 2012 and bill of entry for regularisation of import filed in
2018 - Petitioner contesting assessment/re-assessment of vessel to Customs du-
ties under Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962 at tax prevalent in 2018 despite fact
that vessel imported on 28-5-2012 when Customs duties applicable were ‘nil’
and integrated tax in terms of Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 not in-
troduced - HELD : Whether bill of entry presented before date of entry or after
date of entry, bill of entry to be deemed to have been presented on date of ac-
tual entry inwards and said date of entry shall be reckoned as relevant date for
application of law prevalent as on that date - Law prevalent as on date of im-
port of vessel only be applicable - Merely because bill of entry not filed at in-
ception in year 2012 and manual bill of entry filed in year 2018, duty and tax
cannot be levied based on law prevalent on date of filing of manual bill of en-
try - Duties, being ‘nil’ at time of import in May, 2012, and integrated tax in
terms of Section 3(7) ibid introduced w.e.f. 1-7-2017, hence, assessee entitled to
reliefs claimed - Section 15 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Samson Maritime Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (333) E.L.T. 148 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 17, 19]
Seamec Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P. (L) No. 2921 of 2011, decided on 22-1-2012
by Bombay High Court — Relied on ........................................................................................... [Para 16]
Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.
— 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................... [Para 18]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 16/2012-Cus., dated 13-6-2012 .................................................................... [Para 19]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Vivek Reddy, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri B. Krishna Mohan, Asst. Solicitor General, for
the Respondent.
[Order per : M. Seetharama Murti, J.]. - This writ petition, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking verbatim the
following reliefs :
“..a. To prohibit the Respondents from seeking to assess/re-assess to cus-
toms duties the vessel - MV Jag Aditi under section 17 of the Customs Act,
1962 in the year 2018 or thereafter, when the vessel was imported into India
on 28-5-2012 at which point in time the applicable customs duties were
‘NIL’, on the ground that the same is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary
to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and,
violative of Article(s) 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
and
b. To prohibit the Respondents from seeking to assess the import of the
vessel - MV Jag Aditi which was imported on 28-5-2012, to Integrated tax
(‘IGST’) in terms of section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (which levy
was introduced only w.e.f. 1-7-2017), on the ground that the same is wholly
without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  170