UNION OF INDIA Vs. BAKUL CASHEW COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 3676 of 1981 are the appellants and the petitioner is the sole respondent therein. On the learned judge remitting the matter for fresh consideration in the light of what had been stated in his judgment dated 8.4.1983 [reported as Bakul Cashew Co. v. Union of India and Ors. in 1984 2 ECC 289 (Mad), this writ appeal is preferred.

(2.) The petitioner (ranking of parties as in W.P.) had exported 5,000 tonnes of tapioca chips after getting customs clearance on 2.2.1978. The goods were not assessed to any duty. Since the buyer required supply of another 250 tonnes of tapioca chips, that consignment was exported on 13.2.1978. The Customs authorities demanded export duty at Rs. 125/- per tonne, and the petitioner paid the same without prejudice to its right to claim refund. Thereafter, for the export made on 2.2.1978, it was called upon to pay export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- treating it as, "animal feed" liable to export duty under item No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By notification No. 107 dated 16.5.1978 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government included "tapioca chips" in the table annexed to Notification No. 16 Customs dated 22.1.1977 thus exempting animal feed of the description "tapioca chips" from the levy of export duty in item No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, the third respondent herein held that tapioca chips were not exempted from levy of export duty as animal feed prior to 1978 and accordingly levied export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against this order, an appeal was preferred to the second respondent, who remitted the matter to the third respondent for de novo adjudication, but again the demand was confirmed on 16.3.1979 against which appeal and revision filed were also dismissed, and therefore, the writ petition was filed claiming that tapioca chips are not only used as animal feed, but also used as food articles for human consumption, and that having allowed 5,000 tonnes to be exported without demanding duty, and a clarification having been issued on 4.4.1977 that no export duty was leviable on this item, the respondents are estopped from claiming duty, and that there was an erroneous interpretation of Notification No. 107 of 1978 dated 18.5.1978.

(3.) The respondents claim that the point for determination in this case would be for what purpose the export transaction had been entered into by the exporter with the buyer abroad, and tapioca chips being consumed by human beings in some parts of the country would not mean that the exported goods were not animal feed, and that it comes within the scope of item No. 21 of Second Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the plea of promissory estoppel has no relevance, and the Notification No. 411 of 1976 relied upon had been rescinded by Notification No. 16 of 1977, and it has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.