M/S PANKAJ JAIN AGENCIES versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M/S PANKAJ JAIN AGENCIES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
JULY 14, 1994 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND DR. A.S. ANAND, J.] 
Customs Act 1962: Section 25, sub-sections ( 1) and (3}-Notification 
issued by Ceniral Government in exercise of Powers under section 25(1) of 
the Customs Act-Constitutional Validity of, Notification No. 142186-Cus. 
C dated 13-12-86, in so far as it reduces the exte11t of exemptio11 granted by 
earlier notification No. 70/85-Cus., dated 17-3-85 and thereby ame11ds it-
Whether ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under section 25( 1) 
of the Customs Act-l:Yhether violative of conditions laid down by sub-sec. 
(3) of sec. 25 of the Customs Act. 
D 
E 
Constitution of India-An. 19(1)(gj--171e 'duty imposed'-'Excessive-
ness of t.u--Whether infringes the Fundamental Right guaranteed u11der Alt 
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution. 
Notification-Publication in Official Gazette-Whether acquires ele-
ments of operativeness and enforceability. 
The Petitioner was carrying on the business of imports of com .. 
ponents parts of Ball and Roller Bearings. In course of its business, the 
Petitioner entered into agreements with M/s Business Birds, Singapore 
for the supply of 'cups' of Chinese manufacture said to be component parts 
F 
of Ball bearing. Accordingly, two consignment of 5000 and 13000 'cups' 
respectively, under invoice dated 2-2-86 arrived at the Bombay Port on or 
about 10-2·8'6. The Petitioner thereafter filed two Bills of Entry for home 
consumption noted on 19·2 .. 86. However, in the meantime, the Government 
of India (Respondent herein), in exercise of its powers conferred under 
sec. 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, issued, the impugned Notification No. 
G 142/86-cus., dated 13-12-86. The said Notification which was duly published 
in the Official Gazette on the very date i.e. 13-2-86, sought to reduce the 
extent of the exemption granted by earlier Notification No. 70/85-cus., 
dated 17--3-85. The goods in question, in ordinary course would have fallen 
under Tariff heading 84.62(2) and accordingly would have attracted 
H statutory duty under chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is the 
602 
P ANKAJ JAIN AGENCIES v. U.0.1. 
603 
rigour of this statutory duty which was mitigated by the earlier exemption A 
Notification No. 70/85-cus., dated 17·8-85. The impugned notification No. 
146/86 however, amended the previous one In so far as it prescribed import 
duty on 'parts of Ball Bearings'. 
The enhancement of duty brought about by the impugned notifica· 
lion, raised the Petitioner's liability from Rs. 1,84,341 to Rs. 6,42,065. The B 
Petitioner, therefore challenged the validity of the said notification or in 
the alternative Its applicability, before, this Court by way of Writ Petition 
contending therein : -
(a) The import was complete even before the Impugned notification C 
can be said to have come into force, as it was made available In Bombay 
till the 19th of February, 1986. The notification therefore cannot be held 
to have been duly promulgated or brought into force on the day the Import 
had occurred and accordingly would have no application to the two con· 
signment s in question. It is not sufficient that Subordinate Legislation is 
promulgated. For Subordinate legislation to come into force, it is neces· D 
. sary that they are made known or broadcast in a recognisable way, so 
that all men may know what it is. 
(b) The notification in so far as it prescribed import duty on parts 
of Ball Bearings, in effect and substance purports to impose a fresh and E 
nascent duty on spare parts or components of Ball Bearings and hence is 
ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under the section 25(1) 
of the Customs Act, as indeed no duty was really contemplated respecting 
spare parts or components of Ball Bearings under the Customs Tariff Act, 
1975. It is also violative of the specific condition in sub-section (3) of 
section 25 which requires that the duty imposed shall in no case exceed the F 
'statutory duty'. 
(c) The duty imposed by the said notification constituted an un· 
reasonable restriction on the Petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed 
under Art 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 
• 
G 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Delegated or Subordinate Iegislati~n is all pervasive and 
that there is hardly any field of activity, where governance by delegated or 
Subordinate legislative powers is not as important, if not more important H 
60

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.