Cus - It is well settled that date of entry inwards is date recorded as such in Customs Register and since in present case, application for date of entry inwards as also grant of entry inwards was on 01/03/2001, therefore, rate of duty that would apply is rate prevalent on 01/03/2001 - demand upheld: CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, APR 29, 2014: MV GretkeOldenroff carrying imported goods, namely, Canadian Whole Desi Chick Peas (pulses) arrived in Mumbai Port at 2300 hrs on 28/02/2001. However, as per the public notice 20/2001 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai "no entry inwards to the vessels shall be permitted on 28/02/2001". In the present case, the appellant/importer had filed bills of entry No. 3117 & 3119 dated 22/02/2001. Since the vessels arrived on 28/02/2001 at 2300 hrs, no entry inwards was granted to the appellant. Inasmuch as no entry inward was granted, the appellant could not unload the goods.
On 01/03/2001, the rate of import duty on the imported goods went upto from 0% to 5% adv. and consequently the Customs have demanded the duty @5% adv.
The lower appellate authority upheld the demand of differential duty of Rs.30,62,808/- against the appellantby treating the relevant date for determination of duty as on 01/03/2001.
Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT.
It is submitted that if inward entry had been granted on 28/02/2001, the appellant would have been eligible to avail nil rate of duty on the imported goods and, therefore, since the entry inwards was not granted as per the public notice and for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant, the appellant should not be saddled with the enhanced duty liability. Reliance is placed on the Tribunal decision in Thomas Baker (Chemicals) Pvt. Ltd., & Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd., Vs. CC, Chennai and is also submitted that the IGM has been filed in advance and the bill of entry had been assessed on filing of the IGM.
The Revenue representative submitted that as per the Register for the entry of the vessels maintained with the Customs, the date of entry inwards was granted to the said vessel on 01/03/2001 at 1410 hrs. Further as per the Mumbai Port Trust letter dated 28/03/2001, the said vessels berthed at 141-D, Indira Dock at 0730 hrs on 01/03/2001 even though the vessel had arrived at the port at 2300 hrs on 28/02/2001. The light house dues applicable were discharged by the shipping lines on 01/03/2001. As per the Customs Manual, "the entry inwards can be granted after the shipping line has made payment for the light house dues and the shipping line needs to approach the Preventive Officer for granting entry inwards." As per the application made by the appellant firm for grant of entry inwards, the date of entry inwards is shown as - 01/03/2001. In the light of these documents available on record, it has to be concluded that the date of entry inwards is 01/03/2001 and, therefore, the rate of duty prevalent on 01/03/2001 would be the relevant date that should be applied. Reliance is placed on the apex Court decision in Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. UOI - 2002-TIOL-367-SC-CUS. It is also submitted that as per the practice prevalent in the Bombay Customs House, Boarding of the vessel for grant of entry inwards is done during office hours and the said facility is also available after office hours and holidays on payment of applicable MOT dues. In the present case, the appellant had not made any such request nor paid any dues and hence, the differential duty demand is sustainable in law.
The Bench after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit and adverting to section 15 of the Customs Act observed -
"5.2 As per the proviso, if a bill of entry is filed before the date of entry inwards of the vessel, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. The question is what is the date of entry inwards in the present case. There is no dispute about the fact that the vessel arrived in Mumbai Port at 2300 hrs on 28/02/2001; the vessel was allowed to be berthed by the port authorities at 0745 hrs on 01/03/2001; the appellant discharged the port dues on 01/03/2001; the appellant applied for entry inwards and the said application was allowed on 01/03/2001; and in the entry inward register maintained by the Customs House, the vessel was given entry inwards at 1410 hrs on 01/03/2001. From these documentary evidences available on record, it is clear that the date of entry inwards is 01/03/2001 and not any other date."
The CESTAT further observed that in the case of Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd relied upon by the appellant the same dealt with the situation when there was a delay by the Customs authorities for grant of entry inwards and in the present case no such delay is seen or pointed out. Adverting inter alia to the decision of the apex Court in Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. the Bench held that the issue is well settled that the date of entry inwards is the date recorded as such in the Customs Register and since in the present case, the application for date of entry inwards as also the grant of entry inwards was on 01/03/2001, therefore, the rate of duty that would apply is the rate prevalent on 01/03/2001.
Holding that there is no merit in the appeal, the same was dismissed.
(See 2014-TIOL-654-CESTAT-MUM)
