9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discriminatory treatment in customs duty exemption between National Dairy Development Board and a private company importing edible oils. 2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(l)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Interpretation of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. 4. Application of recent Supreme Court judgment on customs duty exemptions for edible oils. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a private company, challenged the discriminatory treatment in customs duty exemption between them and the National Dairy Development Board. The petitioner alleged that the exemption granted to the Board was arbitrary and discriminatory. They argued that the impugned notification violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(l)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether there was unfair competition and discriminatory treatment in the matter of importing edible oils. 2. The Court considered the interpretation of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. It was argued that the respondent Board did not fall under the categories mentioned in Article 19(6), and therefore, the alleged discriminatory treatment towards the petitioners was in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g). The Court analyzed the substance of the legislation and emphasized that restrictions on fundamental rights should not be arbitrary or excessive. 3. The judgment referred to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding customs duty exemptions for edible oils. The Court discussed the justification for the differential treatment between private importers and entities like the State Trading Corporation. It was highlighted that exemptions must be based on relevant and reasonable grounds to serve the public interest. The Court distinguished the circumstances of the present case from the Supreme Court decision, emphasizing the specific policy considerations involved in granting exemptions. 4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the exemptions provided to the respondent Board were not applicable to the items being imported by the petitioners. It was concluded that the petitioners could not challenge the impugned notifications on grounds of irregularity or illegality. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and discharged the Rule, allowing the respondents to enforce the arrear dues in accordance with the law. The judgment also granted a stay of operation for one week after the long vacation.
|
