T T BLADES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed and conducted in a most casual manner and Shri Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, after arguing for 45 minutes yesterday evening, stated today that he had wasted the time of the Court as the facts stated by him were inaccurate and the documents shown to the Court were not correct.

(2.) Shri Shroff desired to tender a draft amendment when the petition was taken for hearing this morning and insisted that amendment should be granted accordingly. I declined to do so because amendment to the petition cannot be granted during the hearing of the petition and that too by merely tendering across the draft amendment. The petitioners should have taken care to take out Chamber Summons as prescribed by the Original Side Rules. It seems that the petitioners and the Advisers are under the impression that Rules are not made to be observed and they can throw anything at the Court whenever it is convenient to them. I declined to permit that course. Shri Shroff thereafter also stated that he had filed an affidavit before Mr. Justice Kurdukar before when the petition came up for hearing on January 6, 1986 and was adjourned. The Affidavit is not on record. Shri Shroff insisted that the copy of the affidavit should be read. I think it is improper to read the copy of the affidavit when the original is not on record and I am not sure that the statement that the original was tendered in Court is correct. Whatever it may be, it is necessary to deal with the petition on merits and I propose to do so.

(3.) The petitioners are a Partnership Firm and are engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting razor blades. For the manufacture of the goods, the petitioners import as raw-materials stainless steel strips in coils and the import is made against actual users licences granted by the Import Control Authorities. In the year 1981, the petitioners imported steel coils and removed it to the Bonded Warehouse. The Bill of Entry was filed on September 17, 1982 for Ex-Bond Clearance for Home Consumption and the Customs Authorities assessed the duty at Rs. 3,25,330.85. The petitioners made payment of sum of Rs. 3,25,330.85 being the quantum of the duty and the sum of Rs. 14,492.82 being interest from February 16, 1982 to November 10, 1982 aggregating to Rs. 3,39,823.67. The duty also with the interest was paid on November 11, 1982. The copy of Bill of Entry is annexed as Ex. B. The correctness of this copy is in dispute but more about that subsequently. Inspite of payment of duty, the petitioners did not care to clear the consignment owing to alleged labour problems in their factory. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it is claimed by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the respondent No. 1 brought into effect a Duty Exemption Scheme whereby importers were allowed to import goods free of customs duty if the goods imported are used for manufacture of finished goods and the same are exported. The petitioners further claimed in paragraph 4 that the said Scheme is published in the Import and Export Policy April 1983-March 1984. The next sentence is that the Central Government also issued a Customs Notification dated April 5, 1982 in implementation of the Duty Exemption Scheme. I enquired from the learned counsel as to when the Scheme initially came into force and no answer was given. In case, the Scheme has come into force by the Policy of April 1983-March 1984, then the Notification could not be of an earlier date. The fact that the Notification was issued on April 5, 1982 and the said Notification refers to Advance Licence indicated that the Scheme must have been propounded long prior to 1982. The petitioners have not cared to annexe copy of the Notification to the petition. The petitioners claimed that an application for advance licence was made to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay and the Controller issued Advance Licence No. 2987398, dated March 14, 1983 under the Scheme for the import of 6495 Kgs. of Stainless Steel Strips of the c.i.f. value of Rs. 3,13,800 with the endorsement that the licence was valid for the clearance of the goods already arrived and lying in Custom Bonded Warehouse. The copy of the Advance Licence is annexed as Exhibit 'A'. The petition inaccurately states that the copy of the Bill of Entry is annexed as Exhibit 'A' and the copy of the advance licence is annexed as Exhibit 'B' when it is exactly contrary.