TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es or drugs will be exempted from payment of customs duty levied thereon in accordance with the rates set out in the notification. One of the items set out in the Table annexed to the notification is Tioc (Crude Ertyromycin/Erythromycin Thocynate). The petitioners sought benefit of the exemption notification and the goods were cleared after the custom authorities assessed the bills of entries. 2. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex realised that the duty was less charged as the benefit of the exemption notification dated March 6, 1979 was not available to the import effected after August 10, 1984. On August 10, 1984, the Government of India had published notification in exercise of powers conferred by sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Bench that the notification comes into effect as soon as the same is published in the official/Government Gazette. It is entirely unnecessary that the fact of publication of the notification should be made known to every importer. Once the notification is published in the Government Gazette, then every person is expected to know of the same. The grievance of Shri Mehta that the effect of notification dated August 10, 1984 was not known to the petitioner is therefore required to be turned down. 4. The second contention urged by Shri Mehta is that the notification dated August 10, 1984 was issued by Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 25 of the Customs Act and sets out that the exemption was withdrawn in publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1984 i.e. before the date of publication of the notification withdrawing the exemption. Shri Sethna, learned counsel appearing for the Department, pointed out that in ground (a) of paragraph 12 of the petition, it is specifically mentioned that the goods were imported after August 10, 1984 and the import was delayed because of some problems with the airlines. In face of positive assertion on the part of the petitioners that the goods were imported after August 10, 1984, it is futile to suggest that the bills of entries were filed on August 4, 1984. In our judgment, the orders passed by the Assistant Collector confirming the short levy notices cannot be faulted with and the petition must fail. 4. Accordingly, rule is discharged with cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|