1995 (6) TMI 25 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration of liability for customs duty on imported material.
2. Entitlement to clear imported material without payment of customs duty.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 210/82 and subsequent amendments.
4. Applicability of impugned Notifications on duty exemption.
5. Comparison of project-based and goods-related exemptions.
6. Relevance of Supreme Court judgment in Kasinka Trading case.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a declaration regarding liability for customs duty on imported material cleared between December 30, 1986, and January 21, 1987, and the entitlement to clear imported material without payment of customs duty. The petitioners contended that full exemption was granted under Notification No. 210/82 until September 10, 1987, and argued against the applicability of impugned Notifications 517/86 and 513/86 dated December 30, 1986. The court noted that subsequent amendments expressly removed supply to O.N.G.C. from the exemption list under Notification No. 210/82, requiring duty payment at 25% ad valorem for goods supplied to O.N.G.C. The court dismissed the argument that the exemption was project-based, emphasizing that the power to exempt can be modified or withdrawn in public interest, as established in the Supreme Court judgment in Kasinka Trading case.

The court held that the exemption under Notification No. 210/82 was modified in public interest by the impugned Notifications, making the judgment in Kasinka Trading case applicable. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions and ruled against them, directing them to make the duty payment within four weeks, with enforcement through the bank guarantee in case of default. The court concluded that there would be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, the court found no merit in the writ petition, discharged the rule, and directed the petitioners to make the duty payment within the specified timeframe, with provisions for enforcement through the bank guarantee in case of default. The court also decided that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.