The main legal point established in the judgment is that notifications under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be published in the Gazette on the same day and should not be discriminatory in fixing trend value for only a part of the class of goods.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions and writ appeals are disposed of by this common order since they involve common questions of law and facts. The parties would be REFERRED TO with reference to their rank in the writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are engaged in the import and export of various edible oils. They have been importing edible oils in bulk from various ports throughout the country. It is stated that the petitioners had imported RBD Palmolein which had arrived at port of destination and the same were cleared after payment of import duty of 85% of its value pursuant to the notification which was in existence on the said date. Major quantity of goods under the aforesaid consignment was removed from the warehouse, but removal of the balance quantity was denied. However, subsequently they received notice stating that in view of the notification under Section 14 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which came into effect from 3-8-2001, the tariff value in respect of RBD palmolein had been raised to 372 US $ per metric ton and therefore the petitioners were liable to pay the difference in the tariff as they had paid the tariff as per the earlier notification. Being aggrieved by the said demand and the alleged notification, the writ petitions were filed challenging the same alleging that the said notification was not published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 and the RBD Palmolein which had been imported by the petitioners had been subjected to duty as per the prevalent tariff rate and the alleged Gazette notification must have been published on 6-8-2001. It is stated that the notification received at Cochin custom Authorities was notification which was required to be published in the Official Gazette and the same was received on 3-8-2001 at 11. 44 p. m. and therefore the publication in the Gazette was not made on 3-8-2001 and the change in the rate of tariff was not brought to thej notice of the petitioners and even the Customs Authorities were notj aware of the said change and since 4th and 5th August were Saturday and Sunday which were public holidays, the publication must have been made after 6-8-2001 and the copy of the Gazette notification is received by the Customs Authorities only on 7-8-2001. Further, it is stated that the notification dated 3-8-2001 is null and void as it is contrary to the provisions of the Act as tariff value has been raised only in respect of some of the goods, that is, RBD Palmolein, RBD Palm Oil and Crude palm Oil whereas a large number of other goods such as sunflower, safflower or cottonseed oil, rapeseed oil and soyabean oil have been left out, which amounts to discrimination and therefore the notification is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the petitioners have imported the RBD Palmolein in bulk on the basis of the tariff value which was in existence and imposition of the revised tariff value without bringing to the notice of the petitioners would amount to violation of the rights of the petitioners as enshrined in Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India and therefore null and void.

( 3 ) IN the said writ petitions the petitioners sought for an interim order of stay of the letter demanding differential tariff amount pursuant to the notification dated 3-8-2001. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 18-9-2001 rejected the prayer for interim order.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred W. A. Nos. 6030 to 6034 of 2001. The said appeals were admitted by this Court on 6-10-2001 and interim order was granted for ten weeks and it was ordered that the goods shall be released on the appellant furnishing solvent security for the differential duty as per the notification dated 3-8-2001 to the satisfaction of respondent 2-Commissioner of Customs, mangalore. Learned Counsel for the appellants has moved an Application, i. A. No. II as respondents have not accepted the solvency certi