9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge against imposition of higher Customs Duty due to changes in successive Customs Notifications. Analysis: The case involves a challenge against the imposition of higher Customs Duty due to changes in successive Customs Notifications. Initially, a Notification exempted basic duty above 25% and additional duty. Subsequently, an Auto Coner Machine was included in the exemption list until 31st March, 1990. However, a later Notification raised the Auxiliary Duty on the machine from 0% to 5% and increased the upper limit of basic duty from 25% to 35%. The writ petitioners had already taken steps for importation based on the initial exemptions. Despite the raised duties, they proceeded with the import, leading to a situation where the goods were cleared after the exemptions were withdrawn. The main argument presented was based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The writ petitioners contended that they had taken steps for importation relying on the exemptions provided in the Notifications. The additional duty that would now be imposed, amounting to approximately Rs. 12 lakhs, was a significant financial burden that they had not foreseen when initiating the import process. The validity of the Notification withdrawing the exemptions was not challenged, but the applicability of such withdrawal to the writ petitioners was disputed. The court considered various legal precedents and established principles regarding promissory estoppel in cases of subordinate legislation, especially in the realm of Customs and Excise. It was noted that while legislative power cannot be interfered with, relief can be granted in specific instances where individuals have relied on previous duty situations to their detriment. The court referred to several cases where promissory estoppel was applied to subordinate legislation, emphasizing the need to balance financial hardship caused by tax changes with the reliance of individuals on previous duty structures. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the writ petitioners, stating that they had altered their position and taken steps based on the initial duty exemptions. As the goods had already been delivered, the court declared the delivery to be permanent and ordered the return of the cash security and discharge of the Bank Guarantee provided by the petitioners. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances under which individuals had acted in response to duty structures when determining the applicability of changes in Customs Duty.
|
