BHARAT SURFACTANTS (PVT.) LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 17-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-r 
• 
BHARAT SURFACTANTS (PVT.) LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
MAY 17, 1989 
A 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, 
B 
S. NATARAJAN, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND 
S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962-Sections 15, 16, 46 and 56-Rate of duty and 
Tariff valuation-Determination of-Date of presentation of Bill of 
Entry-Relevance of-' Date of entry inwards of vesse/'-Date recorded in 
Customs register. 
By way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the 
petitioners sought relief against the imposition of customs duty at 150 
c 
per cent on their import of edible oils into India. Pursuant to the con-
tract entered into by the petitioners with foreign sellers for the supply of D 
edible oils the consignment of edible oils was sent by the ocean going 
vessel M. V. Kotta Ratu. The vessel approached Bombay and made its 
"prior entry" on 4 July, 1981. It actually arrived and registered on 11 
July, 1981. As the port authorities at Bombay were unable to allot a 
berth to the vessel, the vessel left for Karachi for unloading other cargo 
intended for that port. The vessel returned on 23 July 1981 and waited 
E 
for berth. On August 4, 1981 she was allowed to berth in Princess Docks 
'C' shed and the Customs authorities made the "final entry" on that 
date. 
Customs authorities are stated to have imposed duty on the 
1mport of edible oil at tlte rate of 150 per cent on the footing that the 
F 
import was made on 31 July, 1981, the date of "Inward Entry". The 
case of the petitioners was that the rate of duty leviable on the imports 
should be that ruling on II July, 1981, when the vessel actually arrived 
and registered in the Port Bombay and that but for the fact that berth 
was not available the vessel would have discharged its cargo at Bombay 
and would have been liable to pay customs duty at the rate of 12.5% 
G 
which was the ruling rate on that date i.e;, 11 July, 1981. The petitioners 
contended that the rate should not have been more than 42.5% because 
that was the rate of customs duty ruling on 23 July, 1981 when the 
vessel entered the port of Bombay. 
The Court rejecting the claim of petitioners, 
H 
367 
A 
B 
c 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: The rate of duty and tariff valuation has to be determined 
in accordance with S. 15(1) of the Customs Act. Under s. IS(l)(a), the 
rate and valuation is the rate and valuation in force on the date on 
which the Bill of Entry is presented u/s 46. According to the proviso, 
however, if the Bill of Entry has been presented before the entry 
in»ards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the Bill of Entry 
shall be deemed to have been presented on the date <Jf such entry 
inwards. [373B-C] 
The date on which a Bill Entry is presented under S. 46 is, in the 
case of goods entered for home consumption, the date relevant for 
defrrmining the rate of duty and tariff valuation. Where the Bill of 
Emry is presented before the date of Entry Inwards of the Vessel, the 
Bill of Entry is rlt·••med to have been presented on the date of such Entry 
Inwards. [375B] 
The amendment made in S. 16 of the Act appears to have been 
made by way of clarification and does not detract from the conclusion 
D 
that "the date of entry inwards of the vessel" is the date recorded as 
such in the Customs register. [375F] 
' 
In the present case, "the date of inwards entry" is mentioned as 
31st July, 1981. In the absence of anything else, it may be taken that the 
~' 
entry was recorded on that date itself. Accordingly, the rate of import 
E 
duty and the tariff valuation shall be that in force on 31st July 1981. 
The contention of the petitioners that the rate of import duty and tariff 
valuation »ill be that ruling on July 11, 1981 cannot be sustained and is 
rejected. [375G] 
(l)Shawney v. M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd., 77 Born. L.R. 380; 
F 
(2) Apar Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 185 (1985) 22 
E.L.T. 644; (3) Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. S.R. Patankar, Asstt. 
Collector ~f Customs, Bombay"& Ors., [1988] 33 E.L. T. 77; (4) M/s. 
Omega Insulated Cable Co., (India) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, 
Madras, approved. Writ Appeal No. 537 of 1969 decided by the Hon'ble 
Kailasam and Paul, JJ. on 9 July, 1975, referred to. 
0 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3130of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Harish N. Salve, K.K. Patel, Ujwal Rana, Rajiv 
H Dutta and K.K. Mohan for the Petitioners. 
' 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.