1989 (3) TMI 289 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction
3. Quashing of Administrative Order
4. Representation and Promissory Estoppel
5. Use of Forging Quality Carbon Steel
6. Scope and Interpretation of the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS), 1981

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The court addressed whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. It was held that the court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(8) of the Constitution since part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

2. Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction:
The court examined whether respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition could be considered authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was concluded that these respondents were agencies or instrumentalities of the Union of India and thus amenable to writ jurisdiction.

3. Quashing of Administrative Order:
The court considered whether the communication dated 2-9-1987 was liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. It was determined that even if viewed as an administrative order, it could be quashed.

4. Representation and Promissory Estoppel:
The court analyzed whether any representation was made by the appellants. It was held that the representation was made to the effect that if the scheme was followed, the manufacturers would be entitled to reimbursement of the price difference for the quality of steel used. The court rejected the argument that the scheme did not hold out a promise, referencing the decision in M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 621).

5. Use of Forging Quality Carbon Steel:
The court examined the contention that the first respondent did not use Resulpharised Carbon Steel (Forging quality carbon steel) EN 8 DM. It was found that the first respondent had indeed used the specified steel, supported by invoices and Chartered Engineer's certificates. The court dismissed the argument that the use of imported high carbon steel wire rods was required, stating that the ultimate product was not chemically analyzed to prove such use.

6. Scope and Interpretation of the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS), 1981:
The court reviewed the scope of the IPRS, 1981. It was noted that the scheme aimed to reimburse the difference between domestic and international steel prices to enable Indian manufacturers to compete globally. The court found that the first respondent had satisfied all requirements of the scheme, including the use of Resulpharised Carbon Steel (EN 8 DM) and the actual export of finished products. The court rejected the argument that the scheme did not hold out a promise, emphasizing the detailed procedures set out in the scheme for submission of applications and reimbursement.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the first respondent was entitled to reimbursement under the IPRS, 1981. The court also held that the appellants were authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and amenable to writ jurisdiction. Costs of Rs. 2,000/- were awarded, and the bank guarantee furnished pursuant to the interim directions pending the writ appeal was ordered to be released.