1970 (1) TMI 28 - HC - Customs

Customs - Animal feed or compound animal feed - Liability to export duty - Promissory estoppel - Connotation of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of export duty on groundnut oil meal protein portion of compound feed; Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Application of Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962; Invocation of principle of promissory estoppel.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of New Delhi, delivered by Justices Prakash Narain and B.N. Kirpal, addressed the challenge against the levy of export duty on the groundnut oil meal protein portion of compound feed being exported. The compound animal feed exported by the petitioners comprised various oil extraction meals and wheat bran, known internationally as "Indian compound feed." The dispute centered around the absence of specific duty entries for animal feed in the export tariff schedule from 1969 to 1976, leading to conflicting interpretations regarding the liability of export duty on compound animal feeds.

The Government of India, through Notification No. 137 of 1968, had exempted mixed feed containing oil cakes from excess customs duty, sparking debates on whether this exemption extended to compound animal feed. A Tariff Ruling by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in 1969 initially supported the non-liability of export duty on compound animal feeds, emphasizing their distinct commercial identity. The petitioners exported such feed, initially assessed at Nil duty pending verification tests, which subsequently required test certificates for composition confirmation.

The crux of the matter arose when the Assistant Collector levied export duty on the groundnut extraction content in 1977, triggering appeals and revisions culminating in the present writ petition. The central issues raised were the applicability of Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the invocation of promissory estoppel to prevent duty imposition based on prior representations by the Central Government. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 19, emphasizing the requirement of a "set of articles" with distinct identities for duty calculation, which did not align with the blended nature of compound animal feeds.

Furthermore, the court upheld the principle of promissory estoppel, citing the detrimental reliance of petitioners on the government's representation of non-dutiable nature during export contracts. The judgment referenced legal precedents such as the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills and distinguished the applicability of Section 21 of the Sea Customs Act from Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the duty order, and restrained the respondents from levying export duty on Indian compound feed shipments, affirming the application of promissory estoppel in this context.