1995 (8) TMI 71 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of duty exemption scheme for import of components of Cement Manufacturing Plant.
2. Determination of whether imported Rollers in 1995 were replacements of old Rollers or fresh imports under the current Import Policy.
3. Consideration of exemption notification for goods imported for repairs.
4. Rejection of application for Special Exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on the import of Rollers, components of a Cement Manufacturing Plant. The Petitioners had imported Rollers in 1992 under a Duty Exemption Scheme but later re-exported them in 1995, claiming that the replacement Rollers imported in 1995 were not fresh imports but replacements of the old Rollers. The Respondent No. 2 contended that the import of Rollers in 1995 was not covered under the current Duty Exemption Scheme. The Court noted that the earlier Policy had ended in 1993, and the Special Imprest Licence granted to the Petitioners had expired in June 1993. The Director General of Foreign Trade had informed the Petitioners that the import of Rollers in 1995 was not covered under the Duty Exemption Scheme of the current Import Policy. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether the imported Rollers constituted replacements or fresh imports depended on the specific facts of the case. The Court also highlighted that the Petitioners' reliance on an Exemption Notification for goods imported for repairs needed to be strictly construed based on the facts of the case.

The Court further discussed that after the Petitioners' application for Special Exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act was rejected, the Respondent No. 2 was entitled to enforce the duty demand. The Court rejected the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that on the facts presented, they were not inclined to interfere. The Court concluded that since the Petitioners failed to obtain Special Exemption and the 2nd Respondent was within their rights to enforce the duty demand, the Petition was rejected. The Court expedited the issuance of a certified copy of the order, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.