....
j
A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
VICTORY PLASTIC PVT. LTD. AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 13, 1996
B
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.)
Customs Tariff Act, · 1975 :
First schedule-Item No .. 39.01/06-P. VC. resirr-Liable to payment of
C dut)r-Subsequently exempted by Notification dated 15.3. 79 to be operative till
31.3.1981-Modified by another Notification limiting the exemption to the
duty in excess of forty per cent ad valorem-Party opening the letters of credit
only on 20.11.1980 after the modified Notification-Pa1ty claiming full exemp-
tion of du~laim rejected by Assistant Collector but upheld by the High
Court-Held, opening of letters of credit and entering into transaction after
D modified notification-Hence not entitled to full exemption of duty.
Kasinka Trading & Anr. Etc. v. Union of India & Anr., J.T. (1994) 7
362, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3336 of
E
~~
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.93 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 1678of1983.
Joseph Vellapally, V.K. Verma and N.K. Bajpayee for the Appel-
F
lants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High
Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The writ petition
was directed against the order of the Assistant Collector, Customs rejecting
a refund application filed by the respondent.
The respondent had imported P.V.C. resin which is liable to payment
H of duty under tariff Item No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs
568
(
f
,
-.C
-
..
U.0.1. v. VICTORYPLASTICPVf. LTD.
569
Tariff Act, 1975. The Central Government had, however, issued an exemp-
A
tion notification providing that P.V.C. resin falling under Chapter 39 when
imported into India shall be exempt from the whole of the duty of customs
leviable thereupon. This notification dated March 15, 1979 stated that it
shall remain in operation till March 31,. 1981. On October 16, 1980,
however, the said notification was modified by another notification limiting B
the exemption to the duty in excess of forty percent ad va/orem. The
respondent, it is not in dispute, opened the letters of credit only on
November 20, 1980, i.e., after the issuance of the notification dated October
16, 198-0. The import was much later. Even so, they contended that they
should get the benefit of full exemption of duty as provided by the first
notification dated March 15, 1979 and that the notification dated October C
16, 1980 cannot be applied to him. This contention was rejected by the
Assistant Collector but the High Court has upheld the same.
An identical dispute has been pronounced upon by this Court in
Kasinka Trading&Anr. etc. v. Union of India &Anr., J.T. (1994) 7 362. The
said decision deals with . these very notifications. Indeed, that was a case D
where the appellant had placed orders for the import of P.V.C. resin before
the issuance of notification dated October 16, 1980. Even so, it was held
that he cannot plead promissory estoppel nor can he claim full exemption
under notification dated March 15, 1979 ignoring the later notification. The
case before us is a clearer one in the sense that the opening of letters of E .
credit and the transaction was entered into after the issuance of the
notification dated October 16, 1980. Following the said decision - and also
having regard to the aforementioned factual position - this appeal is
allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
No costs.
F
G.N .
Appeal allowed.
Lex