KEDIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION Vs. SIMPLEX INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar question of law is involved in these cases and therefore taken up for discussion together and disposed of by this common order. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may. take up the facts of CWP No.3917/82. The question for consideration in this petition relates to the challenge of notification No.232 CUS dated 21/10/1982 which purports to amend the fixed time notification No.86 CUS dated 2 3/04/1980 as amended by notification No.164 CUS dated 5/06/1982 and the action of the respondents, in purporting to charge duty of customs in excess of 55 per cent ad valorem on the caprolactum imported by the petitioners.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that notification dated 5/06/1982 was valid up to 31st May, 1983 and during the currency of this notification, it was not permissible for the respondents to issue another notification dated 21/10/1982 thereby enhancing the limit from 55 per cent to 75 per cent. Thus validity of notification dated 5/06/1982 is challenged and it is stated that the petitioners are. liable to pay duty on the basis of earlier notification dated 5/06/1982 and not on the basis of notification dated 21/10/1982. In all these petitions though the notifications are of different dates but the question involved is same, namely, exemption of duty of customs announced by one notification is enhanced by another notification.

(3.) The question that falls for consideration is as to whether it was permissible for the respondents to withdraw the Notification dated 5/06/1982, and issued subsequent Notification dated 21/10/1992. The fact of which was to reduce the exemption available to the petitioners resulting into demand of more custom duty. This question is no more res Integra and has been decided by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Bombay Conductors and Electricals Ltd., and Anr. Vs. Shri K. Chandramouli. Under Secretary to the Govt. of India & Ors., reported in ILR 1983(1) 487. The Full Bench of this court in the aforementioned case held that the Notifications issued by the Central. Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 were in the public interest which were not open to judicial review. These were issued in the exercise of the sovereign and legislative powers, and therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel was not available to the importer. It was also held that withdrawal of duty exemption Notifications does not violate the freedom to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, these writ petitions are dismissed.