9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mr. E.S. Govindan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions, the Court made the following order:- The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. He got incapacitated at the age of 23. At the time of filing the writ petition, he was aged 33. He is working in M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad as Chief Accountant. In order to attend to the day-to-day requirements of Banking, etc., connected with his financial duties, he needed a car with special amenities adapted for his use. He obtained a medical certificate from the Specially Constituted Medical Board on 4-9-1983 as per the policy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 5-8-1984. The delay in transport was due to cyclone on enroute. 3. The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry for Home consumption on 31-7-1984 i.e., the last day of validity of Notification No. 160/84. The Customs Department made an endorsement on the Bill of Entry on 13-8-1984 stating that the Notification bearing No. 160/84 had expired on 31-7-1984 and the petitioner was not entitled to concessional rate of duty as per the Notification. It was also stated that an Import Licence was necessary in view of the non-applicability of the concessional rate of duty. The Bill of entry was subsequently cancelled and Yellow Bill of Entry was filed on 24-8-1984 and the car was kept in the Bonded Godown. 4. The petitioner made a representation on 14-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner filed these two writ petitions on 22-1-1985. In W.P. No. 435 of 1985, the prayer is for issue of mandamus directing the Assistant Collector of Customs (Group III), Madras to release the car lying in the bonded godown at Madras on payment of 50% duty as per Notification No. 160/84 dated 22-5-1984 and pass further orders. In the other writ petition viz., W.P. No. 436 of 1985, the prayer is for issue of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records before the first respondent dated 22-8-1984 and quashing the same and also directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and issue an adhoc exemption under Section 25 of Customs Act and pass such further orders. 5. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst these contentions, learned counsel for the respondents contends that once the notification expires, the duty is payable under the provision of Sections 12 and 15 of the Act and as on the date of entry of the goods into the Port, the duty that was payable was 185% ad valorem duty. It is submitted that the notification cannot have any operation beyond 31-7-1984 and in this case, the ship having entered the Port on 5-8-1984, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the notification. Secondly, it is argued that the order impugned has taken note of the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Act and rejected the request of the petitioner only after consideration of the relevant circumstances and there is no warrant for a direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , I am directed to inform you that it is regretted that it would not be possible to accede to your request for exemption from Customs Duty on import of the specially designed car." The further representation made by the petitioner to the Finance Minister has been rejected by order dated 13th December, 1984 in the following words :- "I am directed to refer to your letter dated 12-9-1984 addressed to the Finance Minister on the above mentioned subject and to say that as already informed vide this Department's letter of even No. dated the 22nd August 1984 your request for Ad-hoc exemption cannot be acceded to. As regards your request for recommending your case to the Chief Controller of Imports Exports for grant of import licence I am di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not be entitled to any exemption as the policy had changed after 31-7-1984. Even if the policy has changed in general it is applicable to all the general public but it is open to the Government under Section 25(2) of the Act to consider whether in a particular case, the exemption should be granted. For that purpose, the Government should consider whether there are exceptional circumstances and whether public interest will be satisfied by granting an order of exemption in favour of the appellant. In the present case, such consideration has not been made by the authorities in either of the orders. 12. It is clear therefore that both the orders are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record in so far as they failed to consider t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
