9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 1977 Sub-Sr. No. 5804 of the Schedule was substituted to read thus: Sl. No. Sub- Description of goods Rate of drawback 5804 Cut and polished diamonds of not less than 12 pieces per carat, 3% (Three per cent only) of the f.o.b. value. Provided that - 1. The above rate shall apply only to :- (i) the shipments made by the exporter in discharge of his export obligation in respect of imports of rough diamonds under the advance licences issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports; (ii) shipments of cut and polished diamonds manufactured out of rough diamonds imported against replenishment licences or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that "the existing sub-serial No. 5804 and entries relating thereto shall be deleted". The petitioners in each of the three petitions imported rough diamonds after 7th October 1977 and made declarations upon the bills of entry thereof that the same diamonds would, after being cut and polished, be exported within six months so as to claim the drawback. After 7th April 1978 the petitioners exported the imported diamonds after they had been cut and polished and claimed the drawback thereon. After verification of the petitioners' claims the respondents granted and paid to the petitioners the drawback amounts. 4. Thereafter the petitioners received notices from the Assistant Collector of Customs which said that the drawback amounts had been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners had relied upon the fact that the public notice dated 7th April 1978 did not state that it was issued in supersession or modification of the public notice dated 7th October 1977, but it was obvious that the entries under sub-serial number 5804 were deleted thereby. The public notice dated 7th April 1978 had to be given effect to as it was worded. If it took away the item relating to rough uncut diamonds from the drawback schedule, it automatically meant that the drawback rate thereon would be nil and, as such, it could not be said that the payments of drawback to the petitioners were not erroneous. 8. Pending the appeal, the petitioners had furnished bank guarantees in the amounts of the drawback claimed from them. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were governed by Section 28 of the Act and were out of time. He also submitted that the respondents were estopped from making any claims for repayment of the drawback amounts. Lastly, it was his submission that the public notice dated 7th April 1978 had effect only in respect of replenishment licences. The petition also challenges the vires of Rule 14, but no argument in that behalf has been advanced before me. 12. I shall confine myself to the argument that the public notice dated 7th April 1978 operates only prospectively. The observations of the Supreme Court in Ms. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 704, are apposite. A public notice prescribed the condition that imported s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
