SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 338

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, S. NATARAJAN, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
M. Jhangir Bhatusha etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1924-27 of 1980 (with C.M.P. Nos. 19709-11 of 1982 and C.A. Nos. 44-47 of 1982 etc. etc.
Decided on 17-5-1989.

Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.MINOCHA, A.N.BANATWALA, A.SUBBA RAO, A.Subhashini, AMAN VACHHER, ANIS AHMED, Atul Sharma, B.DUTTA, C.K.RAINA PARKHI, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.GUTPA, D.N.Mishra, E.C.AGARWAL, E.M.S.ANAM, H.K.GANGVANI, HARISH N.SLAVE, K.C.AGARWALA, K.K.GUPTA, K.K.Mohan, K.K.PATEL, K.M.NAYAR, K.N.BHATT, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, KAMINI JAISWAL, Kuldip Singh, L.C.AGRAWAL, M.C.DHINGRA, M.K.D.NAMBUDIRY, M.K.Dua, M.L.SHRIVASTAV, M.VIRAPPA, MADAN LOKUR, P.G.GOKHALE, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, P.P.SINGH, PRAMOD AGARWAL, PURNIMA BHATT KAK, R.B.DATAR, R.B.HATHIKHANAVALA, R.K.Joshi, R.RAVINDRAN, Rajiv Datta, S.K.Gambhir, S.K.MEHTA, S.M.Sarin, S.Manchanda, S.SRINIVASA VARMA, SANJAY SARIN, SOLI J.SORABJI, SUSHMA SURI, U.A.RAMA, V.K.PANDITA, V.MAYA KRISHNAN, V.N.GANPULE, VIVEK GAMBHIR

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14 - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Section 3 - Customs Act, 1962 – Section 25(2) and 12 - Customs Duty - Relief - Discriminatory treatment - Appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing writ petitions complaining of discriminatory treatment between appellants and the State Trading Corporation in regard to rate of customs duty levied on import of edible oils - Number of writ petitions have also been filed directly in this Court by other private importers based on same complaint - They pray for relief in terms of same rate of customs duty as has been applied to the import of edible oils effected by State Trading Corporation - It was not permissible to use such imported oils for manufacture of Vanaspati Or for any industrial purpose - Import of edible oils was exempt from customs duty, but with effect from that date exemption was partially withdrawn and certain specified oils were made liable to import duty at 121/2 per cent - Auxiliary duty chargeable under the Finance Act was, however, payable - Whether exemption orders should be struck down or their benefit extended in favour of the private importers also – Held, To all these considerations the learned, Attorney General has drawn our attention, and we cannot say that they are not reasonably related to the policy underlying the exemption orders - So that the Government would have sufficient supplies of edible oil at hand in order to feed the market, learned Attorney General says, it was considered desirable and in the public interest to reduce the rate of customs duty to five per cent on imports made by the State Trading Corporation - Now it is the Central Government which has to be satisfied, as authority appointed by Parliament under S. 25(2), that it is necessary in the public interest to make the special orders of exemption - It is true that State dons the robes of a trader when it enters the field of commercial activity, and ordinarily it can, claim no favoured treatment - But there may be clear and good reason for making a departure - Viewed in background of the reasons for granting a monopoly to State Trading Corporation, acting as an agent or nominee of the Central Government in importing the specified oils, it will be evident that policy considerations rendered it necessary to make consummation of that policy effective by imposing a concessional levy on the imports - Court are also not satisfied that any of the private importers have made out that their business will be crippled or ruined in view of the rate of customs duty visited on their imports - Material before us is not sufficient to warrant any conclusion in their favour - Appeals and petitions for special leave to appeal as well as writ petitions before us are dismissed - Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

PATHAK, CJI.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing writ petitions complaining of discriminatory treatment between the appellants and the State Trading Corporation in regard to the rate of customs duty levied on the import of edible oils. A number of writ petitions have also been filed directly in this Court by other private importers based on the same complaint. They pray for relief in terms of the same rate of customs duty as has been applied to the import of edible oils effected by the State Trading Corporation.

2. As common question of law arises in these appeals and writ petitions and the facts are substantially similar, we propose to treat Writ Petition No. 3800 of 1980, M/s. Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India & others, as the leading case.

3. On 17 January, 1977 the Government of India issued a Public Notice permitting private parties to import edible-oils for direct human consumption. It was not permissible to use such imported oils for the manufacture of Vanaspati Or for any industrial purpose. Under the Import Policy of 1978-79, the Government canalised the import of edible oils so that the State Trading Corporation alone was permitted to import edible oils. Some of the private importers who had entered into firm commitments with foreign suppliers and were now being denied permission to import the edible oils filed writ petitions in various High Courts, and these writ petitions were allowed and they were granted licences to import the edible oils.

4. Prior to 1 March. 1979 the import of edible oils was exempt from customs duty, but with effect from that date the exemption was partially withdrawn and certain specified oils were made liable to import duty at 121/2 per cent. Exemption was granted from additional duty chargeable under S. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Auxiliary duty chargeable under the Finance Act was, however, payable. On 17 March, 1979 the Government passed an order of exemption in favour of the State Trading Corporation under S. 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 whereby the imports of the specified oils by the State Trading Corporation were made liable to customs duty at 5 per cent only, and there was a total exemption from auxiliary and additional duty. The imports of the same specified oils by private importers were made liable to customs duty at 12.5 per cent ad valorem. The concessional rate of customs duty in favour of the State Trading Corporation was restricted to imports aggregating 3 lakh tonnes initially. That quantity was enlarged to 6 lakh tonnes on 26 June, 1979. On 31 October, 1979, a further order of exemption was made in favour of the State Trading Corporation granting it exemption for imports of five lakh tonnes of the specified oils, and this was followed on 31 March, 1981 by another order of exemption in respect of an aggregate quantity of 5 lakh tonnes of oil. It may be mentioned that on 12 May, 1981 the import of edible oil was exempted from the levy of auxiliary duty.

5. On 18 July, 1981, the Government reduced the exemption granted to the import of the specified oils by private operators by raising the customs duty to 421/2 per cent. The exemption in favour of the State Trading Corporation continued without change. Thereafter on 26 July, 1981, by Ordinance No. 9 of 1981 the government raised the tariff rate of customs duty to 200 per cent ad valorem by amending the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. At the same time exemption was granted insofar that the effective rate of duty on the import of the specified edible oils, except Rape Seed oil and Soyabean oil, was fixed at 125 per cent. The exemption from auxiliary duty was withdrawn. In the result a private importer had to pay a basic duty of 125 per cent and auxiliary duty of 25 per cent on the import of edible oils. The oil seeds imported by the State Trading Corporation continued to attract customs duty at 5 per cent.

6. Writ petitions were filed in the
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top