- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 19 July 2018
- Bench
- S. Ravindra Bhat, A. K. Chawla, S. Ravindra Bhat (Oral)
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 16905/2004
Judgment
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J JULY 19, 2018 nn
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.07.2018 + NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Bhalla, Ms. Anju Bhattacharya and Ms. Deepika Kumar, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel for Customs with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % CM APPL. 31542/2017 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 75 days in filing the application seeking restoration is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CM APPL. 31541/2017 (for restoration) 2. In view of the orders passed in CM No.31542/2017, this application is also allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original position in the file of this Court. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 3. The writ petitioner – National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Ltd. is a federation of cooperative consumers in India and is the apex body. It entered into commercial contracts for import of 5000 metric ton (mt) of garlic pursuant to the special licences issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.). The garlic was a restricted item under the Export & Import Policy 2002-07 till 16.01.2003 and could not be imported and such foreign commodity/goods could not be traded. This was to encourage the growth and trade of domestic products. During the concerned season there was a garlic shortage. On account of this even the D.G.F.T. enabled individuals and other entities to import garlic as a restricted item and issued special licences for this purpose. Outer limit for such importation and the corresponding licences were to the tune of 4000 mt. The petitioner obtained special licences to import 5000 mt. Prior to the Customs Notification No.11/2003 issued on 15.01.2003 the pre- existing rate of customs duty was 30% however, by this Notification of 15.01.2003 the customs duty was increased to 100%. 4. The petitioner had imported and cleared 3000 mt of the consignments which it had contracted for; the special licences to that extent were exhausted. As on 15.01.2003, it appears that the balance goods, i.e. 2000 mt, had arrived at the port but the Bill of Entry could not be filed on account of certain documentary formalities. Consequently, when the question of clearance of the goods arose, the Customs authorities insisted upon the payment of 100% duty. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 1755/2003. In that writ petition, the proceedings from time to time indicate that the Court was of the opinion that the respondents, especially the Customs Authorities ought to consider the issue reasonably. The writ petition was disposed of on 17.02.2004 on the ground that since the dispute primarily concerns to government bodies, the Committee of Disputes headed by the Cabinet Secretary ought to examine it. Subsequently, the Customs Authorities appear to have turned down the petitioner"s request and omitted to grant relief to the petitioner with respect to its request for an order under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter "the Act"). In these circumstances, the petitioner"s grievance that the differential rate of duty i.e. balance 70% (i.e. the difference between the pre- existing/original duty of 30% prior to the Notification dated 15.01.2003 and duty of 100% brought in on that day) ought to be paid, has been highlighted in these proceedings. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urges that the power under Section 25(2) of the Act is a stand-alone one and that in special or exceptional circumstances the Central Government may pass, on good and various grounds, such orders exempting a particular consignment from such rate of customs duty as may be appropriate. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgme
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.