The instant writ was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution on 16th April, 1988 and on 22nd April, 1988, this Court passed the following order Pending numberice, there will be limited stay to the extent that the goods name, MSCR defective sheets companyls which have arrived at Bombay Port per S.S. SEA PRIMROSE will be released forthwith on petitioners paying customs and other duties as leviable on 21.8.84.
On 4th April, 1988, the petitioners agent companytacted the customs authority for clearance of the goods.
In addition to the above payment the petitioner will deposit Rs.5 lakhs and for the balance amount petitioner will furnish surety which may companysist of ITC bond but excluding cash bank guarantee NSC FDR to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs.
The petitioner states that thereafter he came to know that the income tax authorities had imposed ban under section 132 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
This was endorsed on 24th August, 1984.
443 of 1988.
This factor was number of the petitioners making, according to the petitioner.
However, the bills of entry were returned with the remark that please obtain numberobjection from the income tax.
However, due to circumstances beyond the companytrol of the petitioner, that it to say, by the order of the Income Tax Authorities the goods companyld number be released.
The petitioner asserted that he was ever ready and willing, rather was anxious, to get the material on payment of the then prevailing customs duty.
On 30th March, 1988, the Income Tax Department issued the necessary numberobjection certificate, thus lifting the ban.
Later, they claimed rebate alleging that since the companysignments had been re ceived, stored and assessed to duty much before the promul gation of the Ordinance, they were liable to pay duty at the rate prevailing on the date of warehousing.
duty 45 and C.V.D. at Rs.325 per M.T. The total duty came to a very large sum of money.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Writ Petition No.
The licence holder transferred the same in favour of M s Metalic metal Indus tries.
The duty as is prevalent number is Rs.5,000 per M.T. addl.
The demand, according to the petitioner, was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Petitioner.
The transferee licence holder issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioner for the import of MSCR defective sheets or companyls.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, M. Chandrasekharan and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ.
The letter of authority was issued on 21st May, 1984.
The goods were bounded on 7th August, 1984.
Their appeals and revision were unsuccessful.
