The power to issue notifications under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 is subject to the limitations imposed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THIS writ application was filed at certain point of time when the machine in question did not arrive in this country nor it was discharged at the port of this country. The Customs Notification No. 164 of 2003 dated 11th November, 2003 is under challenge in this application on various grounds, namely the same is ultra vires Section 25 of the Customs Act so much so that it does not conform to the standard and norms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby exercise of this power while withdrawing exemption granted earlier from payment of duty for import of the subject is not in public interest and rather whimsical and arbitrary. Furthermore, the petitioner is treated with hostile discrimination, while a section of printing press established has been without any intelligible differentia.

( 2 ) WHEN the writ application was moved I did not pass any anticipatory interim order rather I gave direction for filing affidavits to sort out this matter finally. The time limit for filing affidavit expired but respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition, they are still very keen to file it to contest the writ petition. So, the learned Additional Solicitor General prays for extension, granting of extension at the present moment in my view is another aspect. By this time the printing machine has arrived and Bill of Entry has been presented. Under the Statute the duty has been assessed, and according to Revenue it is to be levied with full Customs duty at the rate of 39. 2% contrary to the expectation of the petitioner of the concessional rate of 5% allowed under the withdrawn notification.

( 3 ) OBVIOUSLY, the previous notification has not been applied in view of the impugned notification that has come into force on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioner has, therefore, taken out an interlocutory application for release of the goods upon payment of 5% of Customs duty and on any other terms and conditions as this Court may think fit and proper.

( 5 ) MR. Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Sarkar learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate in support of this application contends that considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience the release of the printing machine is an extreme necessity, as this has to be installed with the foreign expertise for this type of machine is not manufactured nor the technical know-how installing the same is available in this country. The time bound programme for installation has been fixed. In the event such things are not done the petitioner apart from losing business will suffer other losses and injury, which may arise in relation to the contract of supply of this machine.

( 6 ) MOREOVER, the petitioner has been incurring detention charges every day. To avoid these difficulties, he contends that pending hearing of this matter finally goods should be released. He further contends had the affidavit-in-opposition been filed by this time, then today itself the writ petition would have been decided finally as the same is appearing in the list for hearing. While placing his prima facie case he has drawn my attention to various paragraphs of the writ petition and submits that machine in question is not dissimilar to that of the machine as notified in the November Notification. Functional ability and utility are also the same with little variation which are insignificant in nature and this variation does not put the machine in different category or dissimilar character. Therefore, there is no intelligible differentia while making a classification for issuing impugned notification. He submits that with the withdrawal of exemptions freedom of press as enshrined in Article 19 has been infringed by arbitrary and whimsical action, purported to have been exercised under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. In support of his contention he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, which upon