THE PRINCIPAL APPRAISER (EXPORTS) COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS. versus ESAJEE TAYABALLY KAPASI, CALICUT

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 11-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE PRINCIPAL APPRAISER (EXPORTS) COLLECTORATE OF 
CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS. 
\'. 
ESAJEE TAYABALLY KAPASI, CALICUT 
B 
OCTOBER 11, 1995 
!B.P . .JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.I 
Customs A ct, 1962-Section 16( I) Proviso r/w-ss 39, 50 and 5 l-Exp01t 
dul_v Rate of-Date of 'enuy oat1varct-Releva11t date with reference to which 
C rate of custo1ns duty 011 o..po11ed goods to be worked out. 
Respondent, carrying on the business of export of coir yarn 
presented before the customs authorities shipping bills for goods booked 
to the shipped on board. TI1e shipping bills were for getting entry outwards 
D for the ship N. The duty payable on the export of the said goods at the 
then prevailing rate was assessed by the customs authorities. The respon-
dent paid the duty. The 'entry outwards' as envisaged 
u/s 39 of the 
Customs Act, 1962 was issued and an order permitting the clearance of 
the loading of the goods for export was made. However, for want of space 
E 
in the vessel N the goods were 'shut out'. Respondent submitted fresh 
shipping bills on 9.8.1966 for 'entry outwards' for ship P. The earlier 
shipping bills were allowed to be amended enabling the respondent to ship 
the goods on board the vessel P. In the meanwhile and before the necessary 
amendment of the shipping bills the export duty payable on coir yarn was 
enhanced from !Oo/c to 25%. The first appellant demanded from the respon-
F 
dent an additional anu111nt which the respondent }Jaid under protest. 
Thereafter the respondent applied for refund of the additional amount as 
per Section 27 of' the Act. The Assistant Collector (Customs) rejected the 
application on the ground that the total amount of export duty paid by the 
respondent did not exceed the duty leviable on the goods to be exported at 
the relevant date of issuing the 'e1itry outwards' for the ship P. Appeal tiled 
G before the Appellate Collector of Customs was dismissed. Application filed 
u/s 131 of the Act before the Conunissioner of Revision Applications to the 
Government of India was also rt:iected. The respondent liled writ petition 
before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and directed 
the appellant No. 1 to refund the amount to the respondent while holding 
H 
that once there "'as already an 'entry outwards' granted with reference to 
214 
PRINCil'ALAPPRAISER (EXPORTS) v. E.T KAPASI 
215 
the vessel N and duty was assessed, in the absence of there being any A 
provision of reassessn1ent of the duty under the Act the assessed duty 
could not change. Hence this appeal. 
The appellants submitted that the proper export duty chargeable on 
. any goods sought to be exported \\
1cn1ld be duty payable on the date \Vhen 
'entry outwards' for the concerned vessel through \\'hich the goods wt>re 
exported was issued; that in the present case the goods got exported 
through vessel P and 'entry ~1ul\vards' for the said vessel was issued only 
on 9.8.1966; and that the duty payable on that day was 25% ad valorem 
B 
and consequently the earlier 'entry outward' for the vessel N which never 
resulted in the export of the goods was totally redundant and of no legal 
C 
effect and that the High Court had patently erred in holding that once the 
duty was assessed and 'entry outwards' was issued for the vessel N the 
authorities could not demand any further duty on the same goods even 
though they got actually exported by the second vessel P. 
Allowing the appe~I, this Court 
HELD : On the scheme of the Customs Act the customs duty by way 
of export duty is levied when the goods are exported or taken out of India. 
In the present case the goods never left the territorial limits of India on 
any day prior to 9th August 1966. Earlier was an incomplete or inchoate 
attempt on the part of respondent to export these goods through vessel N. 
For that vessel even though 'entry outwards' was obtained it could not 
result into any export as per Section 39 of the Act as that ship had no room 
D 
E 
to carry these goods. Consec1uently the goods remained unexported 
through that vessel. The effective export of these goods took place only by 
F 
the next vessel P. For that purpose the shipping bills were duly amended, 
procedure of Section 50 read with Section 51 was, therefore, followed 
afresh by the respondent and when he gnt 'entry outwards' for vessel P 
which permitted him to get these goods loaded in that ship as per Section 
39, the prevalent rate of duty which the responden

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