9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to get rid of it. So the Government was naturally pestered with restoring the concession and using 1981 as the year of handicapped a policy was brought forth which provided that cars imported for disabled persons would be charged to a total customs duty of 50% ad valorem, as against the prevalent rate of 185% ad valorem subject to the condition that the engine capacity of the cars did not exceed 1000 cc/10 H.P. There were certain other conditions attached to it which were not relevant to be mentioned here. This policy was again reviewed and a press note was issued on 20-7-1982. More or less the condition imposed earlier continued excepting that the CIF value of the car could not exceed to Rs. 65,000 and the capacity limit of 10 H.P. was removed. The petitioners who are described as disabled persons are the ones who have filed these writ petitions, mainly on the ground that they applied in pursuance of this policy of July 1982 for the grant of exemption from payment of customs duty but have not been so given. Their grievance further is that a large number of similar situated persons have been given the exemption under Sec. 25(2) of the Customs Act and for no reason the same benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken the stand that though the petitioners' applications were received earlier to December 28, 1982 the policy was under review and applications received after 13-12-1982 were not processed, and now the policy was governed by notification dated 25-5-1983. Mr. Kapur says that again complaints had started coming in about the possible misuse of imported motors cars being put to use other than for which they were imported and therefore the Finance Minister had to pass an order on 23-12-1983 that the policy be reviewed and no more custom exemption be given. The petitioners had, however, placed on record a list of persons who had been issued the customs exemption in January 1983 we had directed the respondents to prepare a list indicating to us the applicants who had been given exemption and also on what conditions. This had been directed because it was the petitioners' case that the matter of granting exemption had been considered by 2, Inter-Ministerial meetings held on 23rd and 27th December, 1982. It was further his case that larger number of cars had been cleared for grant of exemption, including to petitioners, whose names find mention in the list given by the petitioner marked as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications received prior to 13th December, 1982 were considered at the meeting of 28-12-1982 is not factually correct because list 'C' filed by Union of India shows the dates when applications were received by an applicant whose applications has been cleared and items had been received on 13-12-1982 like S.N. 13. In any case, we do not think that the cut off date of 13-12-1982 has any real rationality to justify the claim for non-consideration. There must be some real reason. No artificial date can be imposed. The reason is that there was no cut off date mentioned for the receipt of the applications. In July 1982 notification inviting applications in general without indicating that they must be filed by any particular date. The mere fact that for convenient reasons a limited number of applications were placed before the committee which had to give the exemption order on 28-12-1982 is no reason why all the applications complete in all material particulars which have been received earlier to 27-12-1982 should not have been placed before the committee. This is more so because even according to Mr. Kapur though the Minister had passed an order on 23-12-1982 the same was not within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Government rightly drew out a general policy and laid down that if an applicant satisfies the conditions laid down therein he would be granted an exemption order. But nevertheless in point of fact an exemption order has to be passed in each specific case. There is no general exemption as is contemplated in Section 25(1) of the Customs Act. Though no doubt till May 1983 notification was issued the general policy laid down was one which was given in July 1982 notification and in the normal course cases for exemption would have been required to satisfy the test till another order was passed under Section 25(2) in May 1983 but when the Central Government on December 23, 1982 decided to review this policy and also gave a direction that no more exemption order will be issued, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for the committee not to allow any further exemption till the review was completed by the Central Government. It would be quite anamolous and against the set principle that after an order is passed on 23-12-1982 by the Minister and the same has been received by the committee on 29-12-1982 the committee should continue to pass exemption orders in terms of July 1982 not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case is now to be found in the notification of May 1983. So far as the other petitioners are concerned we would issue a mandamus directing the respondent Union of India to convene a Committee to consider the cases of those petitioners whose applications were complete in material particulars and were available in the department by 27th December, 1982. We wish to make it clear that even if the application had been filed earlier and had been refiled by giving extra material particulars but so long as he had reached the authorities by 27th December, 1982 the cases of the petitioners would be entitled to be considered by the Committee. The Committee will consider the cases of those petitioners in the light of the principles, conditions and eligibility by which it considered the cases of those persons whose cases were approved and adopted at its meeting held on 28th December, 1982 which was naturally in terms of the notification of July 1982. We are not in a position to pass any specific order with regard to these cases of the petitioners because there are various factual requirements and information which had to be supplied by the various petitioners and which necessarily must be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... says that he does not know the reason for rejection of his application because none has been conveyed to him. He may, therefore apply to the authorities requesting for conveying of the reasons for rejection of his application. In the light of the reasons given to him, he may, if he feels, that it satisfies the criteria by which application was approved at the meeting held on 28th December, 1982, also make representation to the Government as directed by us above. C.W. 1505/83. 6. The counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition as well as in the other writ petitions stated that many of them had filed original documents along with the petition and it would be necessary to have them back so that they could be shown to the authorities concerned. The registry is directed to return the original documents on the petitioners filing copies of the same (copies attested to be true copies by the counsel may be accepted by the registry). 7. Many of the petitioners had furnished the bank guarantees. In the cases of 10 petitioners in the list B who have been held entitled to have the cars released by paying the concessional rate of custom duty as in the case of those whose cases were appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
