9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods exported by the petitioners were not "finished leather" within the meaning of the exemption notification and levied customs duties on the goods. 3. The petitioners after having moved the departmental adjudicating authorities abortively for redress, invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court and obtained the instant Rules. In the meantime, the subject consignments, as it appears, were released for exportation on the petitioners' executing bonds in favour of the Customs authorities. 4. All the three matters were contested by the respondents the Customs authorities, by filing separate affidavits in opposition. According to the respondents, the goods having been declared by the petitioners as 'finished leather', the consignments were classified free of duty on the basis of the said declaration. As per normal practice the consignments of leather were, however, examined by the Leather Trained Appraisers of the Customs House. On such examination, the goods were found to be not in agreement with the declarations made by the exporters and, therefore, samples of the goods were forwarded to the C.L.R.I. for certification. However, since the exporters insisted for immedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r young ones means the leather which satisfy the standard specimen specified for such a leather by the Indian Standards Institution in I.S.I. 8170-1977, for the time being in force." 8. It is, however, not disputed that the subject consignments in all the three cases were exported prior to the 2nd notification dated October 1, 1977 under which 'finished leather' meant the leather which satisfied with the standard specified for such finished leather by the Indian Standards Institution. 9. Now, whatever the petitioners might have stated in their writ petition, it is not disputed that before the customs authorities declarations were made to the effect that at the time of exportation of the goods the said goods conformed to the C.L.R.I. norms. As a matter of fact, in Matter Nos. 357 of 1983 (Pioneer Tanners Glue Works v. Assistant Collector of Customs and 359 of 1983'[Webta (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs]; it has been clearly admitted that at the material time the C.L.R.I. noims were being followed by the Traders. 10. In matter No. 357 of 1983, the petitioners in reply to the show cause notice informed the Customs authorities that they had fulfilled all the operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e C.L.R.I. clarified the opinion by stating that 'It may please be noted that the above opinion is technical and academic and not intended for publicity/advertisement/legal purposes". 15. This clarifying note, in my view, is practically of no consequence in view of the positive opinion expressed by the Director of the C.L.R.I. that the sample leathers did not satisfy the norms and conditions for finished leather as laid down by the C.L.R.I. Workshop. It is likely that since the C.L.R.I. is basically a Research Institute, it wanted to keep itself aloof from any possible controversy and with the said object in view the said clarifying notes were added. 16. It, however, appears that subsequently the Director of the C.L.R.I. wrote to the petitioners or at least to some of them that "leather even though plated particularly without a finished coat may suffer a loss in gloss due to constant handling involved in transport, packing etc." In that connection it was stated that the Customs authorities in Calcutta who had inspected the subject consignments on an 'as is where is basis' in the best position to verify whether the leathers had been plated or not." And as already seen, the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t consignments indisputably conform to the I.S.I. standard. 21. In this connection, reliance was placed upon some decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak, AIR 1985 SC 111. That was a case where during the pendency of the appeal a notification came into force extending the operation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to Memary within the District of Burdwan and it was held by the Supreme Court that since the suit was pending in appeal, the benefit of the relevant notification was available to the tenant. 22. It is, however, not known whether the said notification was given a retrospective effect by the Legislature or not, but it seems that there must have been some indication in the notification which made it applicable to pending proceedings. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court while coming to its conclusion, relied upon the earlier decision of the Court in Dayawati v. Inderjit - AIR 1966 SC 1423 at page 1426, where the Court observed that 'if the new law speaks in a language which expressly or by clear intendment takes in even pending matters (emphasis supplied) the court of trial as well as the court of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
