Case law

Bombay High Court · 29 Nov 2002

Century Textiles And Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)

Legal principle

A duty concession extended by the Central Government under Section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962 to certain importers of specified goods for a specified period cannot be denied to other similarly placed importers of the same goods in the same period, provided they comply with the conditions of the underlying exemption notification.

Court decision

The court held that the petitioners could not be denied the benefit of Notification 12/99, provided they had complied with the conditions of Notification 71/87-Cus as amended by Notification 63/89 and had imported Autoconers during 21.4.1989 to 31.1.1990. It directed the petitioners to apply within four weeks and the respondents to dispose of the application on merits within eight weeks; if held entitled, the petitioners were to pay basic customs duty at 35% plus 5% auxiliary duty. The decision was in favour of the petitioners, subject to verification of the notification conditions, with any bank guarantee kept alive until eight weeks after disposal; the petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Facts

The petitioners (Century Textiles and other mills in a group of petitions) imported 'Autoconers' during 21 April 1989 to 31 January 1990. Exemption Notification 71/87-Cus dated 1.3.1987, as amended by Notification 63/89-Cus, had exempted Autoconers from basic customs duty in excess of 35% and totally from additional duty, but that exemption was deleted for Autoconers by Notification 143/89 dated 21.4.1989 and restored only by Notification 9/90-Cus dated 1.2.1990, leaving a 'gap' period. On a representation by some textile mills, the Central Government, exercising powers under Section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962, issued Notification 12/99 dated 5.2.1999 directing that 11 named textile mills need not pay basic customs duty and additional duty in excess of the rates under Notification 71/87 on Autoconers imported in that gap period. The respondents denied the same benefit to the petitioners, and their affidavit in reply set out no cogent reasons for the denial or for the exclusion of other importers.

Key provisions