ABP PRIVATE LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application was filed at certain point of time when the machine in question did not arrive in this country nor it was discharged at the port of this country. The Customs Notification No. 164 of 2003 dated 11th November, 2003 is under challenge in this application on various grounds, namely the same is ultra vires Section 25 of the Customs Act so much so that it does not conform to the standard and norms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby exercise of this power while withdrawing exemption granted earlier from payment of duty for import of the subject is not in public interest and rather whimsical and arbitrary. Furthermore, the petitioner is treated with hostile discrimination, while a section of printing press established has been without any intelligible differentia.

(2.) When the writ application was moved I did not pass any anticipatory interim order rather I gave direction for filing affidavits to sort out this matter finally. The time limit for filing affidavit expired but respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition, they are still very keen to file it to contest the writ petition. So, the learned Additional Solicitor General prays for extension, granting of extension at the present moment in my view is another aspect. By this time the printing machine has arrived and Bill of Entry has been presented. Under the Statute the duty has been assessed, and according to Revenue it is to be levied with full Customs duty at the rate of 39.2% contrary to the expectation of the petitioner of the concessional rate of 5% allowed under the withdrawn notification.

(3.) Obviously, the previous notification has not been applied in view of the impugned notification that has come into force on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry.