1998 (11) TMI 131 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Date of Effectiveness of Gazette Notification
2. Assessment of Customs Duty
3. Requirement of Publication for Subordinate Legislation
4. Binding Nature of Judicial Precedents

Summary:

1. Date of Effectiveness of Gazette Notification:
The primary question in this application is the date from which a notification issued in a Gazette comes into effect. The petitioner argued that the notification dated 11-9-1996 should only be effective from the date it was made available for sale to the public, which was 16-1-1997. The court held that a notification cannot be said to have been duly published until it is made known to the public, and mere printing in the Gazette is not sufficient. The court relied on precedents such as *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal* and *Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co.*, which emphasized the necessity of making laws known to the public.

2. Assessment of Customs Duty:
The respondents assessed the Customs Duty based on the notification dated 11-9-1996, which was not made available to the public until 16-1-1997. The petitioner contended that the duty should be assessed based on the previously prevailing rate as the notification was not effectively published. The court agreed with the petitioner, directing the reassessment of the bills of entry in terms of the earlier rate of duty.

3. Requirement of Publication for Subordinate Legislation:
The court reiterated that publication of subordinate legislation is essential for it to take effect. Citing *B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka*, the court held that if the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication, it will take effect only when published through the official Gazette or another reasonable mode of publication. The court emphasized that the executive must make all reasonable efforts to make the law known to the public, aligning with principles of natural justice.

4. Binding Nature of Judicial Precedents:
The court noted that not every statement in a judgment constitutes a precedent. Only the principle upon which the case is decided is binding. The court referred to *Union of India v. Dhanwanti Davi* and other cases to highlight that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The court distinguished the present case from *Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India* and *ITC Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay*, where the specific issue of the date of publication was not raised.

Conclusion:
The application was allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the goods by reassessing the bills of entry based on the previously prevailing rate of duty. The court emphasized the necessity of making laws known to the public and the importance of publication in the official Gazette. The decision underscores the principle that laws must be promulgated or published to be enforceable.