RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and have been pending for one decade. It contains several prayers, but the ones relevant for our purposes seek the issuance of a mandamus directing that the Notification No. 38/2002-Cus (N.T.) dated 13.06.2002 is not applicable to the imported goods consisting of 1647.414 metric tonnes of crude palmolein covered under Bill of Entry for Home Consumption dated 12.06.2002 (hereafter 'subject shipment'); for an order declaring that the petitioner is not liable to pay any additional/differential duty in respect to the said shipment of crude palmolein; and that the subject Notification is effective only from 14.06.2002. On 04.07.2002, by way of interim relief, the Respondents had been directed to release the subject shipment on the basis of the duty already paid by the petitioner and in addition thereto on its furnishing "25% bank guarantee towards differential duty".

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard in full detail.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the Division Bench Judgment reported as Param Industries Limited ? Vs-Union of India, ILR 2002 KAR 4523. In that case, the tariff value in respect of RBD Palmolein had been raised to $ 372 with effect from 03.08.2001. The allegation was that the Notification had not been published in the Official Gazette on 03.08.2001, but on 06.08.2001. The Court noted that 4th and 5th August were Saturday and Sunday; that the publication could only been carried on 06.08.2001 and a copy thereof could have been received by the Customs Authorities in Cochin only on 07.08.2001. It was in those circumstances that the Division Bench concluded that the new Notification would not be attracted. While so concluding to fortify their conclusion, a reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others-Vs-Ganesh Das Bhojraj, (2000) 9 SCC 461:AIR 2000 SC 1102. The Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Bhojraj had analyzed several Judgments of the Apex Court including Union of India-Vs- Apar (P) Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 117; I.T.C. Ltd ? Vs ? CCE (1996) 5 SCC 538; Pankaj Jain Agencies ? Vs- Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 198; and State of Maharashtra ?Vs- Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. Their Lordships enunciated the law in these words. "It is an established practice that the publication in the Official Gazette?is an ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned. Individual service of a general Notification on every member of the public is not required and the interested person can acquaint himself with the contents of the Notification published in the Gazette." In doing so, the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of Section -25, which were introduced into the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 01.06.1998, were specifically noticed. The provisions of Section-25 of the Customs Act, 1962 read as under: