2013 (1) TMI 926 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 2/2002-Cus., dated 8-1-2002 under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Satisfaction and immediate action requirement under Section 8A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
3. Judicial review of the notification based on the principles laid down in Indian Express Newspapers and Others v. Union of India and Others.
4. Procedural compliance with parliamentary approval under Section 8A(2) read with Section 7(3) and (4) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notification No. 2/2002-Cus., dated 8-1-2002:
The petitioners, textile mills importing cotton, challenged the increase in import duty from 5% to 10% as per Notification No. 2/2002-Cus., dated 8-1-2002. They argued that the conditions under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 were not satisfied, specifically the Central Government's satisfaction and the existence of circumstances necessitating immediate action.

2. Satisfaction and Immediate Action Requirement:
The petitioners contended that the notification was issued arbitrarily without the necessary satisfaction of the Central Government or any immediate circumstances justifying the increase in import duty. Despite the Court's orders, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue failed to produce the original file or provide a counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the notification.

3. Judicial Review Based on Indian Express Newspapers Case:
The Court referenced the Indian Express Newspapers case, which allows judicial review of subordinate legislation on grounds of unreasonableness, arbitrariness, and non-conformity to the statute. The Court found that the notification did not meet the statutory requirements and lacked material evidence supporting the Central Government's satisfaction and immediate action.

4. Procedural Compliance with Parliamentary Approval:
Although the notification was placed before the Parliament as required under Section 8A(2) read with Section 7(3) and (4), the Court emphasized that mere parliamentary approval does not exclude judicial review. The Court held that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of circumstances justifying the notification, rendering it arbitrary and invalid.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the notification was set aside for not satisfying the requirements of Section 8A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Court emphasized the necessity of material evidence and proper procedural compliance for issuing such notifications.