RUCHI WORLDWIDE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- THE petitioners in W. P. Nos. 15393 to 15395 of 2001 have sought for a writ of declaration declaring the Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N. T.), dated 3-8-2001 issued by the 1st respondent as null and void, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. THE petitioners have also filed W. M. P. Nos. 22829 to 22831 of 2001 for interim directions directing the respondents 2 and 3 to release the goods covered by Bill of Entry Nos. 023823 and 023831, dated 2-8-2001 and Bill of Entry No. 023862, dated 3-8-2001 respectively. THE writ petitions had been admitted on 27-8-2001 and notices had been ordered in all the W. M. Ps.

(2.) MR. Sudhir Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 15393 to 15395 of 2001 in support of the directions sought for in the writ miscellaneous petitions submitted that the petitioners in W. M. P. Nos. 22829 and 22830 of 2001 submitted their bill of entries for home consumption on 2-8-2001 and the same was assessed for payment of duty. In so far as the petitioner in W. M. P. No. 22831 of 2001, the petitioner submitted the bill of entry for home consumption on 3-8-2001 and when the petitioners sought to remove the goods on payment of duty assessed as per bill of entries, the respondents placing reliance on the impugned Government Order insisted the petitioners to pay the differential duty as per the impugned notification. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the said notification was issued under Section 14 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as "the Act" ). The said section specifically provides that such notification shall be published in the Official Gazette. The impugned notification has not been published in the Official Gazette on 3-8-200 1. When there was no publication of the notification in the Official Gazette as contemplated under section 14 (2) of "the Act", the said notification cannot be put against the petitioners for the purpose of payment of differential duty than the one assessed under the bill of entries filed prior to the notification. The learned Counsel submitted that as per Section 25 (1) of "the Act", the central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to certain conditions any specified description of goods from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon. Under Section 25 (4) of "the Act", every notification issued under sub-section (1) shall unless otherwise provided, come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official gazette and also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. Hence, the notification will come into effect only when it is published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and public Relations of the Board, New Delhi. In this case, the notification was not published on 3-8-2001 and was not made available for sale. The notification was published only on 6-8-2001. Much prior to the said date, the petitioners have filed their Bill of Entries and the duties have been assessed and therefore the notification which came into force on 6-8-2001 cannot be put against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to release the goods on the basis of payment of duty levied as per the Bill of Entries submitted by the petitioners on 2-8-2001 and 3-8-2001 respectively.

(3.) AS per Section 14 (1) of "the Act", the impugned notification should be published in the Official Gazette so as to put the notification against the petitioners for duty liability. Prior to the notification, all the petitioners are entitled to remove the goods on the basis of assessment of duty made in the respective bill of entries for home consumption. After the impugned notification, and enhanced duty has been imposed and if the notification is made applicable to the petitioners, the petitioners should pay the differential duty as per the notification. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the notification did not come into force on 3-8-2001 as the same has been published only on 6-8-2001. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General produced the copy of the notification published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001. The relevant date by which a notification comes into force came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in wherein in Paragraph 11 of the said judgment while considering the provisions of Section 25 prior to the amendment Act 21 of 1998, the Supreme Court has held that for bringing the notification into operation under Section 25, the only requirement of the section is its publication in the Official Gazetteand no further publication is contemplated. The Supreme Court has also held that it is an established practice that the publication in the Official Gazetteof India (sic is an), "ordinary method of bringing a rule or subordinate legislation to the notice of the persons concerned and 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. " The Supreme Court also approved the similar view taken by the Supreme Court in the earlier cases reported in (Pankaj Jain Agenciesv. Union of India) and in (State of Maharashtrav. Mayer Hans George ). Therefore, it is to be held that the notification which has been published on 3-8-2001 should be deemed to have come into effect on and from the date of its notification in the gazette namely 3-8-2001.