2024 (2) TMI 381 - HC - Customs

Constitutional validity of Notification No.36 of 2021 dated 03.08.2001 and Notification No.40 of 2001 dated 28.08.2001 - Effective Date of Notification - Prescribing tariff value prescribed therein, for the earlier import of R.B.D. Palmolein oil - HELD THAT - Given the fact that the Division Bench already has considered veracity of the said notification and reached to a conclusion that the said notification is bad to the extent of it being made applicable from 03.08.2001 instead of 06.08.2001 - the same view is endorsed here and there are no reasons to interfere with the said notification. Since the Notification No.40 of 2001 also is identically same, the said notification also is held to be proper, however, it is made clear that the effect of the said notification also would be applicable from the date it was published in the Official Gazette and not from any earlier period of time. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under protest, the petitioner had cleared the entire liability, it is made clear that the petitioner can and will be at liberty to avail the appropriate benefits from the Department in terms of the aforesaid two notifications being made applicable from the date on which they were published in the Official Gazette - the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the validity of Notification No.36 of 2001 dated 03.08.2001 and Notification No.40 of 2001 dated 28.08.2001.

Challenge to Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner initially sought relief by challenging Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as unconstitutional and invalid. However, during the hearing, the petitioner's counsel decided not to press this challenge and instead focused on challenging Notification No.36 of 2001 dated 03.08.2001 and Notification No.40 of 2001 dated 28.08.2001.

Validity of Notification No.36 of 2001 and Notification No.40 of 2001:
The petitioner had previously challenged Notification No.36 of 2001 in two writ petitions, which were decided in their favor based on a Supreme Court decision. The Division Bench clarified that the notification would be enforceable only from the date it was notified and published in the Official Gazette, which was 06.08.2001. Consequently, any liability arising from the notification would be applicable only from 06.08.2001 onwards. The court endorsed the Division Bench's view and found no reason to interfere with the notification. Similarly, the court held that Notification No.40 of 2001 was proper, with its effect being applicable from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to avail benefits from the Department in accordance with the notifications from the dates they were published in the Official Gazette. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate benefits, and no costs were imposed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were to be closed as per the judgment.