M/S. Saira Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Through Its Chief Executive vs Collector Of
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a customs dispute involving the unauthorized removal of imported goods from a private bonded warehouse. Upon inspection, customs authorities discovered a shortage of steel sheets and PVC compound. The petitioner admitted to the shortage and acknowledged removing the goods without paying the assessed customs duty on the filed ex-bond bills of entry. The core legal issue was determining the applicable rate of customs duty: whether it should be calculated based on the rate prevailing on the date of filing the ex-bond bills of entry or the date of filing the in-bond bills of entry. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Collector, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that since the actual date of clandestine removal was exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner, who was a delinquent party, duty was legally and appropriately assessed at the rate prevailing on the date of filing the in-bond bills of entry.
- Whether customs duty on goods clandestinely removed from a private bonded warehouse without payment of duty should be assessed at the rate prevailing on the date of filing the in-bond bill of entry or the ex-bond bill of entry?
- Can an importer who has unlawfully removed bonded goods without paying assessed duty claim the benefit of the duty rate prevailing on the date of filing ex-bond bills of entry when the exact date of removal was exclusively within their knowledge?
- Section 196, Customs Act, 1969
- Customs Act, 1969
JUDGMENT KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.- The petitioner imported some goods and stored the same in its on private bonded warehouse. The same was inspected on 14.3.1998 and shortage of 35 coils/packages of steel sheets and 49 drums of PVC Compound was discovered. A report to that effect was submitted to the collector. The report stated that value of the articles found short was Rs. 21,26,528/- and the amount of evaded duty was Rs. 16,03,884/-. Prima facie the report revealed contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1969. The Collector issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing, vide order dated 27.3.1999 held that the petitioner would be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 12,57,450/-, which he was directed to deposit forthwith. A penalty of Rs. One lac was also imposed. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal (Customs Appeal No. 193/LB/1999) before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") which was dismissed on 23.11.1999. The petitioner filed Customs Appeal No. 166 of 1999 under Section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 which was dismissed by the High Court on 22.10.2001. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this judgment.
2. The factum of shortage is not disputed, it is however, claimed that petitioner filed the ex-Bond bill of entry, it is admitted that the duty assessed on such bills of entry was not paid and the goods were removed without payment. The argument is that the rate of duty applicable should be the one prevailing on the date of filing of ex-Bond bill of entry. The Tribunal as well as High Court have rejected this argument on the ground that the date of removal of goods was exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner and that the assessment could only be made at the rate of duty prevailing on the date of filing of In-Bond bill of entry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the various provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 to support his contention. We are however, unable to agree that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of higher rate in any manner is illegal, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner is a self-confessed delinquent, if not criminal. He cannot fall back upon the mercy of the Court. The Collector seems to be of the view that the filing of ex-Bond bills of entry was a pre-arranged exercise, in the circumstances, the only definite date is the one of filing of In-Bond bills of entry and recovery of duty at the rate prevailing on the said date/dates is not only legal but also appropriate.
4. No exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court. Leave is refused and this Petition is hereby dismissed.