9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of a customs notification providing a concessional rate of duty on imported jumbo rolls of photographic color paper. Requirement of industrial license under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for availing the benefit of the notification. Petitioner's failure to obtain the necessary license within the stipulated period. Claim of unreasonableness and lack of public interest in the conditions of the notification. Analysis: The petitioners, a Partnership Firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932, challenged the legality of a customs notification (No. 216/88) providing a concessional rate of duty on imported jumbo rolls of photographic color paper. The notification mandated importers to hold an industrial license under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, for slitting and confectioning activities. The petitioners, being a Small Scale Industrial Unit, did not possess the required license. They imported jumbo rolls for their laboratory use but did not have the facility for slitting and confectioning, which was outsourced to another entity. The Ministry of Industries, Government of India, issued a Press Note in 1986, emphasizing the need for industrial undertakings, including small scale units, to obtain an industrial license for specific activities involving jumbo rolls. The petitioners failed to apply for the required license within the stipulated period, despite the opportunity provided. The court noted that the petitioners did not qualify for the concessional rate of duty due to their non-compliance with the licensing requirement. In response to the petition, the respondents justified the notification by highlighting the misuse of imported jumbo rolls by small and medium scale units, leading to poor quality production in the market. The government's decision to mandate industrial licenses aimed to ensure specialized technical know-how in the conversion process. The court upheld the government's policy rationale behind the notification and emphasized the importance of compliance with licensing requirements for availing duty exemptions. The court rejected the petitioner's argument of unreasonableness in the notification's conditions, emphasizing the intelligible classification between importers with and without industrial licenses. The court cited a Supreme Court precedent stating that exemption notifications do not create enforceable promises. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the notification's validity or conditions, and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in favor of the petitioners.
|
