9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the notification regarding duty rates on imported consignments. 2. Effect of publication of government notifications in the Government Gazette. 3. Enforceability of bank guarantee and payment of interest on differential amount. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of the notification The petitioners argued that they were not aware of a notification dated August 10, 1984, which increased the duty rate, as it was not made public before they imported their consignment. They contended that the notification should not apply to them due to lack of notice. However, the court held that the publication of a notification in the Government Gazette serves as notice to the general public, and importers are deemed to have knowledge of its contents. The court rejected the argument that the notification must be individually communicated to importers and emphasized that the publication in the Gazette is sufficient to establish notice. The court also disagreed with the decision in a previous case where it was held that improper publication of a notification negates its applicability. Issue 2: Effect of publication in the Government Gazette The court relied on Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes the genuineness of official documents, including notifications published in the Government Gazette. It emphasized that the publication in the Gazette is a recognized mode of informing the public about government orders with financial implications. The court cited a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to support the importance of Gazette publication in establishing notice to citizens. It disagreed with the views of the Single Judge of the court in a previous case and the Madras High Court, asserting that the effect of a notification is immediate upon its publication in the Gazette. Issue 3: Enforceability of bank guarantee and interest payment Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioners were liable to pay duty at the increased rate specified in the notification. The court allowed the respondents to enforce the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners and ordered the payment of interest on the differential amount as per an interim order. The court specified the customs duty rate applicable and directed the petitioners to comply with the payment obligations outlined in the interim order. No costs were awarded in the case. In conclusion, the court upheld the applicability of the notification on duty rates to the petitioners based on its publication in the Government Gazette, emphasizing that such publication serves as sufficient notice to the public. The court also addressed the enforceability of the bank guarantee and the payment of interest on the differential amount, ultimately ruling against the petitioners and in favor of the respondents.
|
