IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of legal terms in tax and customs legislation should align with common understanding, allowing for the inclusion of modern currency forms such as polymer notes under existing exemptions.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is stated to be a company engaged in foreign exchange and remittance business through several branches spread over metropolitan and major cities in the country, on the strength of an Authorised Dealers Category-II licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FEMA’), and the Regulations issued thereunder.

2. The petitioner states that, in terms of the licence issued to it under the provisions of the FEMA, and the relevant regulations, the petitioner is permitted to import foreign currencies. It is stated that during the month of April 2024, the petitioner wanted to import certain foreign currencies consisting of Thai Baht, Malaysian Ringgit, Philippine Peso, Canadian Dollar, Japanese Yen, Chinese Yuan and Singapore Dollar through Yes Bank Ltd. It is stated that the bank had filed a Bill of Entry declaring the goods to be falling under Tariff Item No.49070020 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and sought to avail the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty under Serial No. 304A of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30-06-2017 as amended by Notification No.01/2020-Customs dated 02-02-2020 issued by the Department of Revenue, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. It is stated that the 1st respondent, however, raised an objection that the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty under Serial No. 304A of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30-06-2017 as amended by Notification No.01/2020-Customs dated 02-02-2020 was not available to the petitioner in respect of Canadian Dollars and Philippine Pesos, which were item numbers 3 and 4 in the Bill of Entry, on the premise that the exemption under the notification is available only for ‘paper money’ and not for ‘plastic/polymer notes’. Though the petitioner attempted to convince the 1st respondent that there is no difference between the paper money mentioned in the notifications referred to above and the currencies printed on plastic/polymer, the 1st respondent continued to take a stand that the benefit of the concessional rate of duty in terms of the notifications referred to above was not available to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in dire need of the currency notes for the purposes of its business, the petitioner paid the duty demanded under protest. Reference is made in this regard to Ext.P6 communication. The Bill of Entry was processed by respondent No.1 disallowing the benefit of exemption in terms of the notifications referred to above and by holding that the benefit of such notifications was available only to currency notes made of paper and therefore did not extend to Canadian Dollars and Philippine Pesos, which were currencies printed on plastic/polymer. The order issued by the 1st respondent is on record as Ext.P7. The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging Ext.P7 communication alleging that the same is without jurisdiction and totally illegal.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent refers to the said statement, where again the contention taken is that the benefit of the notifications referred to above is clearly applicable only to paper notes and not to plastic/polymer notes. It is contended that Ext.P7 order is an appealable order and it is for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P7 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is submitted that the notifications relied on by the petitioner for claiming the benefit of ‘NIL’ rate of duty are clearly not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as it is admitted that the Canadian Dollars and Philippine Pesos, which were also subject matter of imports, are currencies printed on plastic/polymer and not on paper as contemplated by the exemption notifications. The learned Standing Counsel appeari