1980 (4) TMI 307 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Exemption from customs duty for imported skimmed milk powder.
2. Validity and application of notifications under section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Retrospectivity of the exemption order.
4. Competence of the Collector and the Board to ignore the Central Government's order.
5. Alleged misrepresentation by the petitioners.
6. Distribution of milk powder under the supervision of the Maharashtra Government.
7. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.
8. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption from Customs Duty for Imported Skimmed Milk Powder:
The petitioners, trustees of a charitable trust, sought exemption from customs duty for imported skimmed milk powder donated for free distribution among children and the poor. Initially, the customs authorities granted exemption under a notification dated 16-7-1977. However, a subsequent notification dated 18-6-1979 imposed additional conditions, including that the donor must also be a charitable organization. The Central Government later issued a special order on 17-8-1979 under section 25(2) of the Customs Act, exempting the milk powder from duty.

2. Validity and Application of Notifications under Section 25(1) and 25(2):
The court analyzed the scope and nature of the Central Government's powers under sections 25(1) and 25(2). Section 25(1) allows for general exemptions through notifications, while section 25(2) permits special exemptions in exceptional circumstances. The court held that the order under section 25(2) was not retrospective and did not violate the principles of retrospectivity.

3. Retrospectivity of the Exemption Order:
The court examined whether the exemption order under section 25(2) was retrospective. It concluded that the order was not retrospective as it merely removed a temporary cloud created by the subsequent notification dated 18-6-1979. The court emphasized that the order did not impair vested rights or create new obligations.

4. Competence of the Collector and the Board to Ignore the Central Government's Order:
The court held that the Collector and the Board, being subordinate authorities, had no power to challenge or ignore the orders of the Central Government. The impugned order under section 25(2) was still operative and had not been withdrawn by the Central Government.

5. Alleged Misrepresentation by the Petitioners:
The Board had alleged that the petitioners misrepresented facts regarding the filing of the bill of entry. The court found no evidence of such misrepresentation and held that the order of the Central Government did not become void ab initio by reason of fraud. The findings of the Board were set aside as untenable in law.

6. Distribution of Milk Powder under the Supervision of the Maharashtra Government:
The court noted that the Central Government's order under section 25(2) required the milk powder to be distributed under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra. The petitioners had complied with this condition, and there was no evidence that they were not distributing the milk powder to the poor and needy.

7. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel:
The court applied the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the respondents were estopped from resiling from their promise and subjecting the goods to import duty and restrictions. The petitioners had acted on the representations made by the Central Government, the Customs Department, and the Government of Maharashtra, and had changed their position accordingly.

8. Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, considering the special circumstances of the case, including the perishable nature of the milk powder and the urgent need for its distribution during the Child Year. The court set aside the orders of the Collector and the Board, and directed the immediate release of the seized milk powder for distribution under the supervision of the Government of Maharashtra.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the show cause notices, confiscation orders, and the orders of the Collector and the Board. It directed the immediate release of the seized milk powder and ordered its distribution among the poor and needy under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra. The court also held that the respondents were estopped from imposing customs duty and import restrictions on the milk powder.