Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 650
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
M/s. Ruchi Worldwide Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Others – Respondents
WP Nos. 15393 to 15395 of 2001
Decided on : 14-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Murugappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: H. Siddharth, A.P. Srinivas
IMPORTANT POINT
The publication of a notification in the Official Gazette serves as constructive notice to the public, and the operative date of the notification is determined by its publication in the Gazette, as per Section 14 of the Customs Act.
Headnote:
Notification - Customs Act - Section 14, Section 25 - The court discussed the relevance of the date of making a notification available for sale and its publication in the Official Gazette under Section 14 of the Customs Act. It highlighted the interpretation of Section 14 and the principles established by previous judgments, emphasizing that the publication in the Official Gazette serves as constructive notice to the public.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged a notification issued under the Customs Act, alleging it to be arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. They argued that the notification, although published in the Official Gazette on August 3, 2021, was made available for sale only on August 6, 2021, and thus should not be operative on the earlier date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the date of making a notification available for sale is not a relevant factor for its effectiveness under Section 14 of the Customs Act. It emphasized that the publication in the Official Gazette serves as constructive notice to the public, and the notification's operative date is determined by its publication in the Gazette.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance of the date of making a notification available for sale and its publication in the Official Gazette under Section 14 of the Customs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 14 of the Customs Act does not mandate the requirement of placing the notification for sale after its publication in the Official Gazette. It emphasized that the publication in the Official Gazette serves as constructive notice to the public, and the notification's operative date is determined by its publication in the Gazette.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the notification No.36/2001 Cus.(N.T) Dated 3.8.2001 issued by the 1st respondent herein as null and void, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory insofar as it relates to the goods of the petitioner covered by the Bill of Entry No.023823 dated 2.8.2001. :In WP No.15394 of 2001 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the notification No.36/2001 Cus.(N.T) Dated 3.8.2001 issued by the 1st respondent herein as null and void, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory insofar as it relates to the goods of the petitioner covered by the Bill of Entry No.023821 dated 3.8.2001. WP No.15395 of 2001 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the notification No.36/2001 Cus.(N.T) Dated 3.8.2001 issued by the 1st respondent herein as null and void, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory insofar as it relates to the goods of the petitioner covered by the Bill of Entry No.023862 dated 3.8.2001.)
1. We have heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.H.Siddharth, learned Junior Standing Counsel, for the respondents.
2. The petitioners assail notification No.36/2001 Cus.(N.T) dated August 3, 2001 issued by the first respondent, on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press his challenge with regard to the constitutional validity of Notification No.36/2001, dated August 3, 2001. The learned counsel however submits that though the said notification was published on August 3, 2001 in the Official Gazette, it was made available for sale only on August 6, 2001. It is only on August 6, 2001, persons got knowledge of the impugned notification being issued. August 4 and 5, 2001 were holidays. Therefore, the petitioners and/or other persons could not get the knowledge of the notification.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to buttress his submission that the date of making available for sale of the notification and the date the notification is made known to the people at large would be the relevant date, relies upon Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'). It is submitted that prior to 2016, sub-Section 4 of Section 25 of the Act mandated that (a) every notification shall come into force on the date of its issue by the Central Government for publication in the Official Gazette; (b) also be published and offered for sale on the date of its issue by the Directorate of Publicity and Public Relations of the Board, New Delhi.
5. In the present case, as the said notification was offered for sale only on August 6, 2001, that ought to be the relevant date. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Param Industries Ltd [2015 (321) ELT 192 (SC)] and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. [2021(377) ELT 659 (Kar.)]. The learned counsel further submits that the bill in the present case was prepared and issued on August 2, 2021 and the vessel arrived on August 5, 2021. The impugned notification issued under Section 14 of the Act, fixing the tariff was offered for sale on August 6, 2021. As such, the petitioners would not be governed by the impugned notification.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Section 14 of the Act does not mandate that it is only after the notification is offered for sale, it would come into effect. Section 14(2) of the Act provides that the Board by notification in the Official Gazette, may fix tariff for any class of imported goods and the same would come into effect from the date it is published in the Official G
