9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Customs Notification No. 164 of 2003 under Customs Act and Article 14 of the Constitution - Hostile discrimination alleged - Interlocutory application for release of goods upon payment of 5% Customs duty - Balance of convenience and inconvenience for release of printing machine - Prima facie case analysis for release of goods - Applicability of Notification in force on the date of presentation of Bill of Entry - Question of similarity of machines mentioned in notifications - Legislative wisdom vs. Court's wisdom in interpreting concessions - Judicial review power in case of executive action - Consideration of balance of convenience and inconvenience for Revenue matters - Conditions for release of goods - Extension granted for filing affidavit-in-opposition. Analysis: The writ application challenges Customs Notification No. 164 of 2003, alleging it is ultra vires Section 25 of the Customs Act and does not conform to Article 14 of the Constitution, claiming hostile discrimination and withdrawal of exemption. The petitioner seeks release of goods upon payment of 5% Customs duty, citing extreme necessity due to the unique nature of the printing machine and time-bound installation requirements. The petitioner argues for the similarity of the machines mentioned in notifications and infringement of freedom of press. The Additional Solicitor General opposes, emphasizing the applicability of the notification in force on the date of Bill of Entry presentation and the dissimilarity of the machines. The Court considers the balance of convenience and inconvenience, leaning towards the applicability of the November 2003 Notification, subject to scrutiny under Article 14 and Section 25. The Court notes the need for a prima facie case analysis for release of goods, highlighting the importance of balance in Revenue matters. Conditions for release include payment of admitted duty and furnishing a bank guarantee for differential duty. The Court extends the time for filing affidavit-in-opposition and adjourns the matter for further proceedings. The judgment underscores the distinction between legislative and executive actions, emphasizing the scope of judicial review in each case. The Court's decision prioritizes securing Revenue while considering the petitioner's circumstances, ultimately allowing for the release of goods under specified conditions to balance the interests of all parties involved.
|
