2002 (5) TMI 872 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the subsequent Notification dated 21-10-1982.
2. Whether the subsequent Notification was issued in the public interest.
3. The application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the subsequent Notification dated 21-10-1982:

The petitioners argued that the benefits granted by the Notification dated 23-4-1980, as amended on 5-6-1982, were unjustifiably taken away by the subsequent Notification dated 21-10-1982. The petitioners acknowledged that the government has the power to issue such notifications but contended that the subsequent notification lacked a basis in public interest.

The respondents maintained that the power to issue exemptions under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, implicitly includes the power to rescind, revoke, or withdraw those exemptions. They cited authoritative judgments, including the Constitution Bench judgment in *M/s. Daruka & Co. v. The Union of India and Others*, which held that economic policies, including import and export policies, are presumed to be in the public interest unless proven otherwise.

2. Whether the subsequent Notification was issued in the public interest:

The petitioners' principal contention was that the subsequent Notification dated 21-10-1982 was not issued in the public interest and lacked any stated reasons for its issuance. They argued that the government is obligated to provide reasons for such actions, failing which the notification should be quashed.

The respondents countered that the notification explicitly stated it was issued in the public interest and argued that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the notification was contrary to the public interest or issued with mala fide intent. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Kasinka Trading and Another v. Union of India and Another*, which held that exemption notifications issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act could be revoked or modified in the public interest even before their specified expiry date.

The court observed that the public interest is inherent in the issuance and withdrawal of notifications and that every government action is presumed to be in the public interest unless proven otherwise. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the subsequent notification was not issued in the public interest.

3. The application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:

The petitioners relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in *Dai-Ichi Karkaria Ltd. v. Union of India*, which stated that the government could resile from a promise if no one is put in an adverse situation that cannot be rectified.

The respondents argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply when public interest is at stake. They cited several judgments, including *Shrijee Sales Corporation and Another v. Union of India* and *Union of India and Others v. Indian Charge Chrome and Another*, which held that individual interests must yield to societal interests and that what is given in the public interest can also be curtailed in the public interest.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the subsequent Notification dated 21-10-1982 was not issued in the public interest. The court emphasized that public interest is the dominant factor in the issuance and withdrawal of notifications and that government actions are presumed to be in the public interest unless proven otherwise. The petitioners' contention was found to be totally misconceived and was rejected, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition with costs.