Case Details: Viterra India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 33 Centax 296 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Adv. with Priyal M. Parikh, for the Petitioner
- Shri Ankit Shah, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The assessee was a Private Limited Company, engaged in the trading of agricultural goods such as pulses, grain, wheat, etc. The assessee was the new and bonafide buyer of the goods covered imported vide Bills of Entry dated 20.06.2017. The importer and the assessee were related parties. The importer imported Canadian whole yellow peas from Glencore Agriculture BV, Netherlands, in terms of a contract dated 20.01.2017, on CIF basis. It was agreed that payment was to be made to the importer five days before the vessel’s arrival at Mundra port. However, the importer failed to make the payment for the goods as per the contract. The importer requested the assessee to discharge the goods from the vessel against a letter of indemnity to avoid demurrage. The same was agreed to by the assessee because of the business relationship it shared with the importer. The importer filed a No Objection Certificate with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, allowing the assessee to take the delivery of the goods. The assessee and the seller entered into negotiations and after taking into consideration the prevailing market demand for peas and other factors, a Contract dated 03.10.2017 was entered into between the assessee and the Seller for the sale of 32250 MT of the yellow peas. The assessee filed a fresh Bill of Entry covering the consignment in question, under protest. The fresh Bill of Entry was being assessed to duty at the rate applicable on the date of filing of Bill of Entry, treating them to be fresh imposed. Thus, the assessee filed the instant writ petition.
High Court Held
The Gujarat High Court held that Section 2(26) importer, in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner, beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer. The rate of duty would be applicable on the date when goods entered home consumption and the date of presentation of the bill of entry. It would not be material if goods ownership had changed. Therefore, the rate of duty would be applicable when the original Bill of Entry was filed for home consumption.
List of Cases Cited
- Anjali S. Lunkad v. Union of India — 1990 SCC Online Bom 84 — Relied on [Para 10]
