Page 180 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

570 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

occasions from its entry in the year 2012 till the manual bill of entry is filed. On
coming to know of violations, a show cause notice was issued; and, by an order,
dated 6-7-2018, penalty was imposed and thereafter penalty was deposited and a
manual bill of entry was filed on 10-7-2018. Admittedly, as on the date of the im-
port of the vessel into Indian waters on 28-5-2012 applicable customs duties were
‘nil’; and, the integrated tax in terms of Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975,
was not introduced.
21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner quoted the following hypothet-
ical propositions. ‘Let it be assumed that in a given case, as on the date of entry of
the vessel, the duties are leviable. However, no bill of entry is filed. Later, the
duties leviable are exempted. At that time, the bill of entry is filed to take ad-
vantage of the exemption of the levy. If the law prevalent on the date of filing of
the bill of entry is to be reckoned as the relevant factor, the importer though lia-
ble to pay duties as on the date of import would be escaping from the liability to
pay the duties.’ ‘Similarly there may be change of rate of duty from time to time.
If the date of filing of the bill of entry is to be reckoned as the relevant date for
application of the law prevalent, it would lead to anomalous situations and un-
certainty.’ Thus, it is submitted that the date of entry of the vessel, which is a
fixed date, shall be the criterion and not the date of filing of the bill of entry,
which is variable.
22. In our considered view, whether the bill of entry has been present-
ed before the date of entry or after the date of entry, the bill of entry shall be
deemed to have been presented on the date of actual entry inwards and the said
date of entry shall be reckoned as the relevant date for application of the law
prevalent as on that date.
23. To sum up, we are of the view that the law prevalent as on the date
of the import of the vessel in the case on hand would only be applicable and that
merely because the bill of entry was not filed at the inception in the year 2012
and the manual bill of entry was filed in the year 2018, that is, about six years
after the actual import of goods, the duty and tax cannot be levied based on the
law prevalent on the date of the filing of manual bill of entry more particularly as
the import of the vessel in May, 2012, is not in dispute and as the vessel ran after
getting necessary port clearances on number of occasions is also not in dispute.
As admittedly the duties were ‘nil’ at the time of import in May, 2012, and the
integrated tax in terms of Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was introduced
w.e.f. 1-7-2017, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the
writ petition.
24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and our
findings supra, we are of the view that the writ petition is maintainable; further,
as the question whether a writ petition would be maintainable depends upon
facts and circumstances of the case, we also find that the contention of the re-
spondents that the writ petition is not maintainable needs no countenance; and,
therefore, there is no need to go into the precedents cited on the said aspect.
25. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall
be no order as to costs.
26. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  180