AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The Revenue seeks reference on the following substantial questions of law as against the order of the Tribunal.
(a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in deciding the date of filing of Bill of Entry as 1-6-98?
(b) Whether there was proper presentation of Bill of Entry on 1-6-98 and Whether the same was presented before the proper officer.
(c) When there is no provision under the Act or the rules to the effect that if the Bill of Entry not complete in particulars has been submitted and returned for compliance, such Bill of Entry presented after such compliance could be deemed to have been presented on the date when it was originally presented.
(d) Whether the crucial date for the purpose of Section 15(1) of Customs Act, 1962 would be the date on which the Bill of Entry containing all the prescribed particulars is presented to the department or the original date on which the Bill of Entry was presented and could not be noted for went of certain prescribed particulars?
It is seen that the importer herein filed a Bill of Entry 1-6-1998. On the same day, carrying out the corrections, Bill of Entry has represented i.e. on 1-6-1998 itself. It is an admitted fact that the Special Additional duty of Customs was introduced on the midnight of 1/2 of June 1998. The Revenue rejected the plea of the assessee that on the relevant date of representation of the Bill of Entry, there was no such Special Additional Duty of Customs. The assessees filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On account of difference of opinion, the matter was placed before a third member, who is also a Judicial Member. The said Member took the view that the corrections made in the Bill of Entry like number of packages etc., would rate back to 1-6-98, and consequentially, the Bill of Entry correction in all particulars, would be deemed to have been filed on 1-6-98 itself. Having regard to the said aspect, the question of levy of Special Additional Customs, which came into force on the midnight of 1-6-98 did not arise. While so holding, the Tribunal applied the decision of the Apex Court reported in The Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement, Group-II and Others Vs. Associated Forest Products (P) Ltd. and Another, , wherein confirming the view of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court pointed out that any amendment to Bill of Entry subsequent to the date of original filing thereof would relate back to the original filing date. When the Bill of Entry was numbered in accordance with the departmental procedure and in the case on hand, on the date of filing of Bill of Entry i.e. on 1-6-98 itself, the Bill of entry was represented with corrections carried out, the Tribunal rightly came to the Conclusion that exigibility on the Special Additional duty of Customs did not arise.
Going by the said facts herein, we do not find any referable questions of law arises. Hence, the above Reference Case Petition is dismissed