9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violative of Article 19(1)(g). This question cannot be divorced from the nature of the right to import. There is no absolute right much less a fundamental right to import.That apart, no factual foundations are laid to demonstrate how this impost has had the effect of destroying the petitioner's right to carry on a trade or business. This contention also has no merit. Appeal dismissed. - 123 and 170 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 14-7-1994 - M.N. Venkatachaliah, CJI and A.S. Anand, J. [Judgment per : Venkatachaliah, CJI]. - By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies, the petitioner, assails the vires of the Notification No. 142/86-Cus., dated 13-2-1986 of the Central Government issued in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, amending the earlier Notification No. 70/85, dated 17-3-1985. These notifications relate to rates of customs duty on the imports of parts, components and sub-assemblies of Ball Bearings and Roller Bearings. The impugned notification specifically relates to `parts' of Ball and Roller Bearings. 2. The petitioner carries on business of imports of component parts of Ball and Roller Bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the day the import had occurred. 4. Sri Ganesh, learned counsel urged several contentions in support of the challenge to the validity — or in the alternative, of the applicability — of the impugned Notification No. 142/86-Cus., dated 13th February, 1986. The contentions urged at the hearing admit of being noticed and formulated thus : First, that the import was complete even before the impugned Notification can be said to have come into force as the impugned notification was not made known to those who were likely to be affected by it as the notification was not available in Bombay till the 19th of February, 1986. Secondly, it was urged, that the impugned notification in so far as it prescribed import duty on parts of Ball Bearings, is ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 as indeed no duty was really contemplated respecting spare-parts or components of Ball Bearings under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The impugned notification, it is argued, in effect and substance purports to impose a fresh and nascent duty on spare-parts or components of Ball Bearings which were not originally brought to charge in the statute and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) No. 78/85-Cus., dated the 17th March, 1985, namely :- In the Table annexed to the said notification for Sl. No. 6 and the entry relating thereto, the following Sl. No. and entry shall be substituted, namely :- (1) (2) "6. Sub-heading No. (3) of heading No. 84.62 1. (a) Parts including sub-assemblies of bearings of description mentioned in item 1(a) of Sl. No. 5 above. 150 per cent ad valorem plus Rs. 15 per part or sub-assembly as the case may be. (b) Parts including sub-assemblies of bearings of description mentioned in item 1(b) of Sl. No. 5 above. 150 per cent ad valorem plus Rs. 26 per part or sub-assembly as the case may be. (c) Parts including sub-assemblies of bearings of description mentioned in item 1(c) of Sl. No. 5 above. 150 per cent ad valorem plus Rs. 38 per part or sub-assembly as the case may be. (d) Parts including sub-assemblies of bearings of description mentioned in item 1(d) of Sl. No. 5 above. 150 per cent ad valorem p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bordinate legislation which requires publication in some recognised way. It is, however, urged, that is, until the notification was available in Bombay — and shown to be so available — the statutory rule or instrument would not become operative. This contention has the familiar ring of the dictum of Bailhache, J. in Johnson v. Sargant [ (1918) 1 KB 101] referred to with approval by Bose, J. in Harla v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467) who said : "Natural Justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is, or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence." [See also D.B. Raju v. H.J. Kantharaj : 1990 (4) SCC 178 Para 14] In Lim Chin Aik v. Reginam [1963 (1) All England Law Reports, p. 223 at 226], the Privy Council also observed : "It was said on the respondent's part that the order made by the minister under the powers conferred by S. 9 of the ordinance was an instance of the exercise of delegated leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken to be correct, it would be apparent that the test to find out effective publication would be publication in India, not outside India so as to bring it to the notice of everyone who intends to pass through India. It was "published" and made known in India by publication in the Gazette on the 24th November and the ignorance of it by the respondent who is a foreigner is, in our opinion, wholly irrelevant." Again in B.K. Srinivasan Anr. etc. v. State of Karnataka Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 1059 at 1067) it was observed : "There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law, whether Parliamentary or Subordinate, demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes. Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the `conscientious good man' seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes's `Unconscientious badman' seeking to avoid the law, law must be known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form or method in which the statutory duty is leviable and any exemption granted in relation to any goods in the manner provided in this sub-section shall have effect subject to the condition that the duty of customs chargeable on such goods shall in no case exceed the statutory duty. (Explanation - `omitted') It is urged that there was no statutory duty at all on spare parts and components and that, therefore, the impugned notification is not an exercise of the power to exempt but is in itself a source and an independent, substantive, fresh import spare parts on which no statutory duty obtained earlier. As noticed earlier this contention is devoid of force. 11. Notes under Section XVI provide : "2. Subject to Note 1 to this Section, Note 1 to Chapter 84 and Note 1 to Chapter 85 parts of machines not being parts of the articles described in Heading No. 84.64 or parts of the following articles falling within Heading No. 85.18/27, namely (i) insulators or insulated electric wire and the like, (ii) carbon articles used for electrical purposes, or (iii) electrical conduit tubing and joints therefor, are to be classified according to the following rules :- (a) goods of a kin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
