JUDGMENT

VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I.:- 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 S.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 Bearings and claims to be the beneficiary by assignment and transfer of certain replenishment licences initially issued in favour of M/s. Geo Millers & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, against exports made by the said licencee. The licences were transferred to M/s. Ashoka Enterprises, New Delhi, Which in turn , further transferred the licences in favour of the petitioner.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with M/s. Business Birds, Singapore, for the supply of cups of Chinese manufacture and said to be component parts of Ball Bearings. The foreign supplier shipped the goods in three different lots from Singapore to Bombay Port. The first consignment of 8600 pieces was sent from Singapore to Bombay on 5-1-1986 per steam ship, Hanlim Mariner. The ship arrived in Bombay on or about 15th January, 1986 and the consignment was cleared by the revenue charging import duty at the then prevailing rates though, however, on the question of assessable values the revenue did not accept the invoice-value. The controversy in regard to that particular consignment was as to valuation and not as to the rates of import duty.

3. The two further consignments of 5000 and 13000 cups respectively under invoice dated 2-2-1986 are stated to have arrived at Bombay Port on or about 10-2-1986. The petitioner filed two Bills of Entry for home consumption which were noted on 19th February, 1986. The dispute in regard to these two consignments concerned in this writ petition is whether the higher rates indicated by the impugned Notification No.142/86 Cus. dated 13th February, 1986 were attracted. It is to be stated that the rates of duty are statutorily provided under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and these notifications under Sec. 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 seek to exempt goods covered by the notification from such part of import duty as may be in excess of what may be specified in the notifications. In that sense the impugned notification, strictly speaking, does not impose or prescribe a rate of duty but has the effect of reducing the extent of the earlier exemption. The petitioners contention is that the higher rates of duty indicated in the Notification No. 142/86-Cus. dated 13th February, 1986 could not be applied to the said two consignments as the impugned notification could not be held to have been duly promulgated or brought into force on 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 Be