1987 (1) TMI 93 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notifications allowing duty-free import of PVC.
2. Application of promissory estoppel doctrine in challenging the notifications.
3. Interpretation of Section 159 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notifications allowing duty-free import of PVC
The judgment discusses five notifications allowing duty-free import of PVC and subsequent rescinding of exemptions. The notifications were promulgated under Section 25 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962. The Government of India justified the notifications by stating they were approved by the Parliament, making them statutes immune from challenges. The petitioners argued that they relied on these notifications to import PVC and suffered losses when exemptions were withdrawn. The court examined the sequence of notifications and the impact on the petitioners' businesses.

Issue 2: Application of promissory estoppel doctrine
The petitioners invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, claiming they acted based on the representations in the notifications and suffered losses due to the subsequent changes. The court delved into the evolution of the doctrine in Indian jurisprudence, citing landmark cases such as Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. The court highlighted the significance of honoring governmental representations and the limitations imposed by the doctrine, especially in cases involving public policy considerations and statutory obligations.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 159 of the Sea Customs Act, 1962
The judgment emphasized the role of Section 159, which requires notifications to be ratified by Parliament. The court held that since the notifications in question were approved by Parliament, the petitioners were not entitled to relief based on promissory estoppel. However, the court expressed reservations about the broad exceptions to the doctrine and suggested a need for clarity in redefining exemptions in notifications to uphold the principles of promissory estoppel effectively. The court granted oral leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, indicating a substantial question of law inherent in the cases.