9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Request for de-registration of contract denied by Assistant Collector of Customs - Writ Petition filed challenging rejection. Analysis: The Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners after their request for de-registration of a contract was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The petitioners, a Company, had set up a special plant in a backward area in Gujarat. The Central Government had announced an Import Policy in April 1985, providing concessional duty for goods under Tariff Heading 84.66 for setting up projects. The petitioners obtained an Import License in July 1985 and registered the contract for import under Import Regulations, 1986. However, the Government increased the duty rate for Project Imports on January 1, 1987. The petitioners applied for de-registration almost five months after the duty increase, following the assessment of their Bill of Entry for home consumption on June 22, 1987. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to seek de-registration due to the increased duty rate, citing a judgment of the Madras High Court. However, the Court found that the petitioners had applied for contract registration in May 1987, well after the duty increase in January. They filed the Bill of Entry for home consumption on January 18, 1987, and the assessment was done on June 22, 1987, before requesting de-registration on June 29, 1987. The Court held that the Madras High Court judgment cited by the petitioners did not apply to their case, as their actions did not align with the circumstances in that case. The Madras High Court judgment had also been overruled by a Division Bench of the same court. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the Writ Petition and discharged the rule. The petitioners were directed to pay the differential duty within four weeks, after which their Bank Guarantee would be discharged. Failure to make the payment would allow the respondents to enforce the Bank Guarantee. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
