9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-10-2008 - D.K. Deshmukh, J.P. Devadhar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Kamal Bulchandani with Ms. L.K. Bulchandani Ms. Tulsi Zaveri, i/by M/s. Kamal Co., for the Petitioner. Shri R. Ashokan, for the Respondent. [Order]. P.C : Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner by this petition challenges notification dated 19-3-2008 issued by respondent No. 2-Director General of Foreign Trade in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy. By that notification, the respondent No. 2 has amended Schedule-I (Imports) of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items. It is common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the respondents stated before us that the said affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No. 1026 of 2008 be treated as reply of the Respondents in this writ petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on various clauses of the India-Srilankan Treaty to point out that the respondent No. 2 had no authority to withdraw the concession which is given by the Treaty, without amending the Treaty. The learned counsel further submitted that because of the Treaty and the notification issued under the Customs Tariff Act, there is no customs duty payable on marble imported from Sri Lanka. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licy has to be in public interest. Therefore, basically we have to see whether the amendment that has been brought out is in public interest and is for legal object. Perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Respondents shows that they have given two reasons for issuing notification and restricting the import of marble from Sri Lanka only at the Kolkata Port, (i) the traders are misusing the facility and were importing marble from Sri Lanka, which is not of Srilankan origin and (ii) to neutralize the benefit of concession granted under the Customs Tariff Act to protect the domestic marble industry. So far as the first reason is concerned, in our opinion for this reason restricting import to only Kolkata Port will serve no p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tect the domestic marble industry. However the importers are liable to pay the normal customs duty for the imports through any port other than Kolkata. 7. It is common ground that by issuing the notification under the Customs Tariff Act, the Government of India has granted total exemption from payment of customs duty so far as import of marble amongst other commodities from Sri Lanka under the treaty. It is clear from the above quoted portion from the reply of the Respondents that the object of issuing notification is to deny the benefit of statutory notification or concession issued under the Customs Tariff Act to the petitioner and others, who import marble from Sri Lanka. In our opinion, the object of defeating the statutory notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
