DHIRAJ LAL H. VOHRA ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 09-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
A 
DHIRAJ LAL H. VOHRA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UMON OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 1992 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, Y. RAMASWAMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962: Sections 15( 1), 31, 46, 68-Goods imported-Ship 
arriving and delivering Import Manifest-Goods could not be handled due to 
strike-Bill of Entry for clearance of goods-Presenting of-Subsequent grant 
C of Inward Entry and arrival of ship into the port-Increase in rates of duty in 
the meantime-Fixing of rate of duty-R.elevant date-What is. 
. The petitioners placed an order with the Indian Agent of a foreign 
supplier for supply of ball bearings, and opened letters of credit. The 
foreign supplier shipped the goods. The ship arrived on February 20, 1989 
D at Madras port and was ready to discharge the cargo, but due to con-
tinuous strike the cargo could not be handled. On February 27, 1989 the 
petitioner presented the bill of entry for clearance of goods for home 
consumption and it was received in the appraising section on February 28, 
1989. The ship arrived into the port and was berthed on March 2, 1989 
E 
and on the same day entry inward was granted. 
From March 1, 1989 the rate of excise duty was increased and the 
difference in tariff levy came to Rs.1,80,46,092.64. 
The petitioners preferred the present writ petition seeking ap-
F 
propriate directions that the components/parts of ball bearings imported 
from the foreign supplier were liable to excise duty prevalent as on 
February 20, 1989 and to release the goods on payment thereof or in the 
alternative to declare s~ lS(l)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 ultra vires of 
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21,265 and 300A of the Constitution. 
G 
H 
It was contended that since the ship had entered into the Indian 
waters on February 20, 1989 and was ready to discharge the cargo, waiting 
clearance into the port and due to reasons beyond the control of the 
petitioners the goods could not be cleared tiU March 2, 1989 by which date 
the rate of levy was materially changed, the duty as on February 20, 1989 
shall be the proper duty. It was also contended that the bill of entry for 
494 
DHIRAJ LAL v. U.0.I. 
495 
clearance of the goods was presented on Feb. 21, 1989 which was received A 
in the appraising Section on Feb. 28, 1989 and that would be atleast the 
pa·oper date for determination of the rate of levy. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. Granting entry inward on delivery of import manifest and B 
the date of arrival of the vessel into port were admittedly on March 2, 1989 
and the Master of the vessel made a declaration that be would discharge 
the cargo on March 2, 1989. Therefore, the relevant date under section 
lS(l)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is the date on which entry inward after 
delivery of import manifest was granted to discharge the cargo for the C 
purpose of the levy of customs duty and rate of tariff. The ship entering 
Indian territorial waters on February 20, 1989 and was ready to discharg~ 
the cargo are not relevant for the purpose of Sec.15(1) read with Secs.46 
and 31 of the Act. The prior entries regarding presentation of the bill of 
entry for clearance of the goods on February 27, 1989 and their receipt in D 
the appraising section on February 28, 1989 also are irrelevant. The 
relevant date to fix the rate of customs duty, therefore, is March 2, 1989, 
The rate prevailed as on that date would be the duty to which the goods 
imported are liable to the impost and the goods would be cleared on its 
payment in accordance with the rate of levy of customs duty prevailing as 
on March 2, 1989. [499-H, 500-A-C] 
E 
2. The rate of duty and tariff valuation on the imported goods 
covered under sec. 15(1)(a) is the date on which the bill of entry is 
presented under sec. 46 read with sec. 31 while the rate of duty and tariff 
valuation in respect of the goods covered under sec. 15(1)(b) is the date 
on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse under sec. 
68. The manifest intention would, therefore, be clear that there should be 
a declaration in the prescribed form by the importer of his intention to 
clear the goods either for home consumption or keep the goods in public 
warehouse. (500-H, 501-A] 
3. The l"alidity of S. 15(1) of the Act has already been upheld by this 
Court and is no longer res integra. However, as per this Court's direction 
dated August 11, 1992 the Respondents may consider the case sympatheti-
cally. It is open to the Government to consider t

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