The chargeability of Customs duty arises when the goods are imported into the territory of India, which includes the territorial waters of India, as per the definition of 'India' under Section 2(27) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the context of Section 12(1) of the Act requires that the word 'India' in this section is not given the meaning it has as per Section 2(27) of the Act. It should instead be given the meaning as per the General Clauses Act viz. the territory of India.

DAVID ANNOUSSAMY, J.

This is an appeal directed against the order of dismissal by a Single Judge of this Court, in W.P. No. 3422 of 1979.

2.As per the First Schedule, Sec. 15.07 of the Customs Tariff Act (51 of 1975), palmolein is subject to standard rate of duty of 60%. By Notification No. 129, dated 1-7-1977, the Government of India exempted palmolein oil from the whole of the Customs duty leviable thereon as specified in the said First Schedule to Act 51 of 1975. While so, the appellant imported two consignments of palmolein which came to India by vessel s.s. Nikoley Somashke. The vessel came to Madras first on 22-2-1979 and was not permitted to discharge the cargo. It went to Kakinada, left that place on 27-2-1979 and came back to Madras on 2-3-1979. The entry inward was granted on the same date, viz. 2-3-1979, and the goods were unloaded; the bill of entry was filed by the appellant on 13-3-1979. In the meanwhile two notifications were issued by the Government of India. As per Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979, for palmolein and some other oils exemption was granted in respect of (a) so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule as is in excess of 12.5%ad valoremand (b) the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under S. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. On the same date, 1-3-1979 another notification bearing number 63 was issued as per which Notification No. 129, dated 1-7-1977 referred to above granting entire exemption to palmolein oil was rescinded along with few other notifications.

3.When the appellant wanted to clear the goods without payment of any tax by virtue of the exemption granted by Notification No. 129, dated 1-7-1977, the Customs Department insisted that the appellant should pay duty at 12.5% as per Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979, which had come into force. The appellant paid the duty under protest and filed petitions for refund on 17-3-1979 and 10-4-1979, respectively for each of the consignments. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Section) by orders dated 20-4-1979 and 17-5-1979, rejected both the petitions as inadmissible. The reason given was that the bill of entry was presented in both the cases on 13-3-1979, by which date the Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979 had come into force and as per that Notification Palmolein remained exempted only from countervailing duty but was subject to Customs Duty at 12.5%.

4.Against these orders the appellant filed W.P. No. 3422 of 1979 before this Court in which he prayed for quashing the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs along with the Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979, issued by the Government of India. He urged two points in the writ petition. Firstly, it was contended that the Customs duty was not leviable at the time when the ship arrived at the territorial waters in India, which in this case, happened as early as on 22-2-1979, and that the notification dated 1-3-1979 was not applicable. The second contention was that S. 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be made use of for issuing notification imposing duty. Both these grounds were rejected by the Single Judge of this Court in his judgment dated 4-8-1980. He held that for the levy of customs duty the relevant date was the date of presentation of the bill of entry which in this case was 13-3-1979 on which date the Notification No. 42, dated 1-3-1979 had come into force. As far as the second contention was concerned, he held that the cancellation by Notification No. 63, dated 1-3-1979 of the exemption granted under Notification No. 129, dated 1-7-1977, and the limitation of exemption to the fraction of the rates specified in the schedule by notification dated 1-3-1979 were in order, since the Government had the power to grant exemption under S. 25 wholly or partially. It is against this order that the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant.

5.The main point urged by the appellant is that when the vessel came