1994 (3) TMI 103 - HC - Customs

Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel - Policy decision of Government - Change in - Words and phrases - Statute - Meaning

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of regulations under Section 157 of the Customs Act as a 'statute' and the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against such regulations.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act could be considered as a 'statute' and if the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against such regulations. The petitioners, dealers in photographic processes, imported machinery before the enforcement of Project Import Regulations in 1986. The regulations curtailed the scope of entry for project imports, excluding certain establishments from benefits. The Customs Authorities refused to treat photographic equipment under the new regulations, leading to legal challenges. The court referred to previous decisions, including Subhash Photographics v. Union of India, which upheld the validity of the regulations.

The petitioners also argued invoking promissory estoppel, claiming they relied on previous notifications. However, the court cited Lazor Colour Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, stating that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied against regulations considered as a statute. The court highlighted the significance of regulations framed under Sections 156 and 157 of the Customs Act, stating that both rules and regulations constitute delegated legislation with the force of law. The court emphasized that regulations are framed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, making them a statute within their respective sphere.

The judgment dismissed the petitions, holding that regulations are considered a statute, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied against them. The court rejected the argument that regulations were mere 'instruments,' distinguishing them from statutes. The court also clarified that the doctrine of promissory estoppel may not apply to changes in government policy decisions. The judgment affirmed that regulations have the status of a statute and are subject to the same legal principles. The court concluded by dismissing the petitions and continuing an interim order at the request of the petitioners' counsel.