1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.A. NO.6213 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

IN

W.P. No.6649 OF 2013 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. MICRO INTERNATIONAL

NO.401, 4TH FLOOR

JAYANTHI BUILDING

AVENUE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002

REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER

D.P. NARESH.

... APPELLANT

(BY MR. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADV., FOR

MR. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.

UNION OF INDIA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF METALS AND MINERALS

SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110003.

2.

METALS AND MINERALS TRADING CORPORATION

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE

HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE

AT CORE-1, 'SCOPE COMPLEX'

LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

... RESPONDENTS

2

(BY MR. BRIJESH CHANDER GURU, ADV., FOR R2

MR. PREMAKUMAR, ADV., FOR R1)

- - -

THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN

THE WRIT PETITION NO.6649/2013 (GM-RES) DATED 19.09.2013.

THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,

ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In this intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has assailed

the validity of the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the

learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been dismissed.

2.

Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that petitioner is a partnership firm, which is engaged in

the business of trading with gold and allied products. The

respondent No.2 is a Government of India enterprise created

as a State Trading Corporation in the trade of metals and

minerals. The respondent No.2 is a nominated agency to

import gold on behalf of the customers. The respondent No.2

procures the gold and delivers the same to the customers by

3

charging trade margin. The appellant intended to procure

the gold bars and accordingly, the appellant approached the

respondent No.2 with an intent to purchase 100 Kgs of god

with 999 purity. The appellant sent an email on 04.01.2013

to respondent No.2 requesting the appellant to procure 100

kgs of gold with 999 purity. By an email dated 07.01.2003,

the respondent No.2 apprised the appellant with regard to

premium, expected delivery schedule and the premium tariff.

The petitioner accepted the premium and revised premium

by communication dated 07.01.2013 and opted for 'C'

category by requesting the respondent to pay custom duty.

Thereupon, the Corporation made necessary indent for

consignment and paid customs duty to the extent of

Rs.1,21,80,430/- at 15.01.2013. The appellant was informed

on 16.01.2013 about arrival of the consignment and was

asked to deposit the required margin money. However, the

appellant failed to deposit the aforesaid amount.

3.

On 21.01.2013, the customs duty tariff was

revised and rate of custom duty was enhanced from 4% to

6%. The Corporate Office of the Corporation by a

4

communication dated 22.01.2013 directed the Regional

Office to collect the customs duty as per the revised tariff on

all un-committed stock i.e., the stock the intending purchaser

had not made any payment or deposited the margin money.

The Corporation thereafter, by a communication dated

22.01.2013 informed the appellant about hike in customs

duty for un-committed stock and a Bank Guarantee Format

was furnished to the appellant for fixing the margin. The

appellant by a communication dated 21.03.2013 requested

the Corporation to charge customs duty as per old rates.

However, Corporation by communication dated 24.01.2013

informed the appellant that as per the guidelines issued by

the Corporate office, the appellant will have to pay customs

duty at the current rate. The appellant challenged the validity

of the aforesaid communication dated 2