PLASTOLENE POLYMERS PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Plastolene Polymers Private Limited has filed the application against the opposite party/respondents Union of India and others challenging the illegality of the purported show cause notice dated July 22, 2004, issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Customer (F.S.E.Z.) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be made liable for anti dumping duty chargeable in respect of the goods sold by the petitioner from Palta Special Economic Zone to third parties under domestic tariff area.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's Company has been licensed as private bond warehousing cum-in-bond manufacturing Unit under Sections 58 and 65 of the Customers Act, 1962, a unit at Falta Special Economic Zone since 2000. The said zone was also declared as a warehousing station Under Section 9 of the Customs Act by the Central Government. The petitioner in usual course of business imported various items for the purpose of using the same for its manufacturing purpose. However, during manufacturing certain imported materials were let out and could not be used for manufacturing in the said unit of the petitioner. The petitioner made several applications before the Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone seeking permission of sale there of to the indigenous buyers under domestic tariff, so that the said goods may be purchased by the third party against payment a duty of custom as applicable. The Development Commissioner duly granted permission for Domestic Tariffs are sale of the said stock. The petitioner in terms of the said permission sold and delivered its stock to Enfield Industries Limited, of 9, Vivekananda Road, Kolkata 7, under Domestic Tariff Area. The said goods were cleared by the Enfield Industries Limited upon payment of duty of customs as determined by the Authorities. The petitioner was served a notice to show cause on July 22, 2004, by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Falta, Special Economic Zone as to why anti damping duty were not levied on the goods, sold by the petitioner to Enfield Industries Limited and also to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be liable for the duty short levied and made liable to make payment of interest. Petitioner has taken the plea that under the provisions of Customs Act a person is liable to pay the duty seeking clearance of goods from warehousing by filing a De-bonding Bill of Entry for home consumption. The Customs Authorities termed clearance of goods sold by the petitioner under Domestic Tariff Area in favour of Enfield Industries Limited, accordingly, the liable to pay duty with regard to such goods was of Enfield Industries Limited. In the event of any duty not lavied on such goods cleared in favour of the Enfield Industries Limited, the petitioner can not be held liable for the same.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the arbitrary, unreasonable wrongful and illegal action of the respondents, complained of, the petitioner preferred this application on the grounds that the action of the respondents in issuing the show cause notice dated July 22, 2004 and in seeking to make the petitioner liable for the duty short levied and interest thereon for the goods cleared in favour of the Enfield Industries Limited, is arbitrary, unreasonable wrongful illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's prayers for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents and each of them, their subordinates and officers to recall, rescind the purported show cause notice dated July 22, 2004 and to refrain from giving effect or further effect on the basis thereof in the manner whatsoever.