9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of exemption certificate application under various schemes. 2. Validity of the petitioner's claim for concession on customs duty. 3. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding levy and exemption of duty. 4. Invocation of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act for grant of exemption. 5. Payment of custom duty and resolution of the liability issue. Issue 1 - Consideration of Exemption Certificate Application: The case involves the petitioner seeking exemption on the import of a specially adapted motor vehicle due to a disability. The petitioner applied for exemption under different schemes announced by the Central Govt. The petitioner's application was initially returned and subsequently granted a license to import a car in 1985 under the fourth scheme. The petitioner claimed that failure to consider earlier applications deprived him of concessions. Issue 2 - Validity of Claim for Concession on Customs Duty: The petitioner contended that the Finance Ministry rejected his representation for concession on the import of the car. The petitioner sought a mandamus to consider his applications dated 1982 and 1984 under the relevant schemes. Additionally, a refund of 50% of customs duty paid was requested. Issue 3 - Interpretation of Customs Act Provisions: The court analyzed the Customs Act provisions regarding the levy and exemption of duty. It was emphasized that the relevant law for determining custom duty and exemptions is the one in force at the time of import. The court concluded that the exemption under the 1982-83 scheme could not be extended to an import that occurred in 1985. Issue 4 - Invocation of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act: The petitioner sought consideration under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act for exemption based on special circumstances. The court declined this request, noting that Section 25(2) is invoked in public interest and not for individual benefit, especially considering the petitioner's demise. Issue 5 - Payment of Custom Duty and Liability Resolution: The court directed the petitioner to pay the balance of custom duty within two months, as the interim order had prevented full payment. The amount deposited in a fixed deposit account was to be paid to the respondents to discharge the liability towards custom duty. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the petitioner's claim for concession under previous schemes was not applicable to the import that took place in 1985. The court also rejected the invocation of Section 25(2) for exemption and directed the payment of the remaining custom duty within a specified period.
|
