DASS COLOUR LAB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions common questions are raised challenging the orders passed by customs authorities on the basis that tariff heading 98.01 does not apply to the photographic machinery imported by the petitioners in view of the definition of "industrial plant" in the Project Imports Regulations, 1986 which came into force on April 3,1986. In three of the writ petitions which were filed in 1986 long before the other petitions were filed, some additional contentions are advanced resting on an interpretation of the said Regulations and the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

(2.) The three writ petitions filed in 1986, are at the instance of the same person with reference to the same import. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on manufacture of colour film processing and printing and enlargement of the same as a Small Scale Industry. It placed an order for import of two mini colour laboratories from Japan, one for their factory in Madras and the other for their branch in Madurai at a total cost of Rs.15,62,000/- (ci.f. value) in October 1985. The Letters of Credit were opened on 23.1.1986 and the dates of shipment were 31.3.1986 and 2.4.1986. The goods arrived at Madras Port in the third week of April, 1986. The petitioner applied to the Director of Industries who was the Sponsoring Authority for recommendation on 22.3.1986. The same was granted on 24.4.1986. But on 3.4.1986, the new Project Imports Regulations, 1986 were issued under Customs Notification No. 230/86 dated 3.4.1986 and they came into force on that day. They defined the expression "industrial plant" so as to exclude from its scope photographic studios, photographic film processing laboratories, photocopying studios and certain other establishments. Applying that definition to the word "Industrial plant" occurring in tariff Heading No. 98.01 in the First Schedule to The Customs Tariff Act, 1975, The Customs authorities refused to assess the duty under the heading and held that duty should be paid under tariff heading No. 90.10. The aggrieved petitioner has filed three writ petitions. In W.P. 6477 of 1986, the prayer is for issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 24.4.1986 in S49/132/86 Group and direct him to register the contract in respect of photographic film printing and processing Machine Model No. FUJI Mini Lab 27 and extend the benefit of concessional duty of 55%. In W.P. 6478 of 1986 the prayer is for a declaration that Clause 3(a)(i) of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 contained in Customs Notification No.230/86 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The prayer in W.P. 6479 of 1986 is the same as in W.P. 6477 of 1986 with respect to the photographic printing and enlarging Machine Model No.QSS 603.

(3.) Apart from challenging the validity of the definition of "industrial plant" in the Project Import Regulations, 1986 as has been done by all the other writ petitioners, the petitioner in the above three writ petitions contends that the said Regulations contain a saving provision as they except "things done or omitted to be done" under the old Regulations which were superseded by the present Regulations. According to him, he had done all that he should do under the old Regulations and the new definition introduced by the new Regulations for the first time on 3.4.1986 will not apply to the two machines imported by him. He has also raised a contention that the principle of promissory estoppel will apply to his case and the authorities are barred by the same from applying the new definition as he had acted already on the basis of the old Regulations.