Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
M/S. Granules India Ltd – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 593-594 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 30371-30372 of 2017)
Decided On : 23-01-2020
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28 (1) – Import – Show-cause notice – Appellant was allowed to clear consignments under Bills of Entry without payment of duty – Appellant claimed clearance of consignment free of import duty in terms of Customs Notification nos. 203/1992, 204/1992, both dated 19.05.1992 – Notification contained a scheme permitting import without payment of customs duty subject to fulfilment of certain norms and conditions – Mere failure to enclose a copy of notification could not be a ground for denial of relief – Denial of exemption in facts and circumstances of the case in view of statutory notifications were per se arbitrary – State is largest litigant – It stands in a category apart having a solemn and constitutional duty to assist court in dispensation of justice – State cannot behave like a private litigant and rely on abstract theories of burden of proof – It is absolutely no defence of State authorities to contend that they were not aware of their own notification dated 18.09.1994 – Onus heavily rests on them and a casual statement generating litigation by State apathy cannot be approved – Impugned orders held to be unsustainable and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 3, 6, 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is aggrieved by orders dated 07.12.2016 and 14.06.2017, rejecting writ petition as also review application arising from the same.
Findings of Court:
It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to follow its own orders in a similar matter. The High Court further gravely erred in holding that the authorities of the State were also unaware of clarificatory notification and neither did the appellant bring it on record. State is the largest litigant as often noted. It stands in a category apart having a solemn and constitutional duty to assist court in dispensation of justice. State cannot behave like a private litigant and rely on abstract theories of burden of proof.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by orders dated 07.12.2016 and 14.06.2017, rejecting the writ petition as also the review application arising from the same.
3. The appellant, during the year 1993 imported 96 tons of the chemical “Acetic Anhydride” under three Bills of Entry bearing nos. 290, 291 and 300 dated 01.12.1993, 01.12.1993 and 14.12.1993 through the Inland Water Container Depot (ICD), Hyderabad under the Advance Licence Scheme. It claimed clearance of the consignment free of import duty in terms of Customs Notification nos. 203/1992, 204/1992, both dated 19.05.1992. The notification contained a scheme permitting import without payment of customs duty subject to fulfilment of certain norms and conditions. The Notification nos. 203/1992 and 204/1992 were amended by a Notification no. 183/1993 dated 25.11.1993, by which the subject imports became liable for duty, the exemption having been withdrawn. The Notification dated 25.11.1993 was further amended by another clarificatory Notification no. 105/1994 dated 18.03.1994 permitting the import of the chemical without customs duty subject to certain terms and conditions. The clarificatory notification was necessitated to obviate the difficulties faced by the importers like the appellant, who had imported the chemical under the advance licence issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade prior to the amendment Notification no. 183/1993 dated 25.11.1993.
4. The appellant was allowed to clear the consignments under the aforesaid three Bills of Entry without payment of duty. Subsequently the respondents issued show cause notice under Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to the same consignments as having been imported after 25.11.1993. The appellant made a representation on 20.11.1997 seeking exemption. It was considered favourably in respect of three other consignments under Bill of Entry No.312 dated 12.09.1993, Bill of Entry No.28 dated 10.02.1994 and Bill of Entry No.27 dated 09.02.1994. The entire consignments were imported under the same advance licence. In pursuance of the show cause notice the appellant was held liable to duty by order dated 12.2.1998 with regard to the consignments under three Bills of Entry bearing nos.290, 291 and 300 dated 01.12.1993, 01.12.1993 and 14.12.1993 respectively though these were also under the same advance licence. The respondents while considering the reply to the show cause notice and fixing liability for payment of customs duty did not make any reference to their notification dated 18.03.1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) on the same reasoning rejected the appeal leading to the institution of the writ application.
5. Dismissing the writ application, the High Court opined that no mandamus for exemption could be issued. The consignments were admittedly imported after 25.11.1993 and before the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994. Thus, there was no arbitrariness on part of the respondent. The appellant preferred a review application inter alia relying upon a Division Bench order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union of India, (2004) 173 ELT 14. Rejecting the plea, the High Court opined that since the appellant did not produce the clarificatory notification along with the writ petition and neither were the respondents aware of the clarificatory notification the appellant was not entitled to any relief.
6. Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that denial of exemption to the consignment actually imported after 25.11.1993 under the advance licence obtained prior to 19.05.1992 notwithstanding the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 holding the appellant liable for customs duty is completely unsustainable. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14288 of 2004 (CC No.5418/2004) preferred against the order in Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) was dismissed. The mere failure
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
