Appeals by Special Leave from order dated 16 1 69 and 19 3 69 of the Govt.
They failed in their appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs and their application for revision was rejected by the Central Government on March 19, 1969.
The applications of the appellants for refund were rejected by the customs authorities, and their appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Collector of Customs on the ground that the amended sections 14 and 15 of the Act were applicable to the companysignments in question.
In that case also the appellants paid the duty under the provisions of the amended sections under protest, and unsuccessfully applied for refund of the socalled excess duty.
They lodged the bill of entry the same day, and it has been claimed that the goods were assessed for duty by the customs authorities at a certain figure.
The facts relating to Civil Appeal No.
The appellants filed revision applications before the Central Government, but they were dismissed by the aforesaid companymon impugned order dated January 16, 1969.
Another 12 cases were cleared on October 10, 1966, and 46 cases were cleared in two lots on or about December 30, 1966 and February 20, 1967.
2219 of 1969, are quite similar, except that the companysignment in that case was of 63 cases of nylon yarn, which were stored in the warehouse on December 14, 1965, and were cleared on May 25, 1967.
The Ordinance was replaced by the Customs Amendment Act, 1966.
S. Chitale, J. B. Dadachanji and D. N. Misra for the Appellant in all appeals.
Markandeya and Girish Chandra for the Respondents in all the appeals.
The appellants cleared 12 cases of the aforesaid companysignment on or about September 1, 1966.
They cleared 32 cases for home companysumption on May 10, 1966, and there is numbercontroversy in regard to it.
Their grievance was that the cases were allowed to be cleared on payment of enchanced duty 1144 according to the amended provisions of the Act.
They paid the duty under protest and applied for refund of the excess payment on the ground that the amended law was number applicable as the companysignments had been received, stored and assessed to duty before the promulgation of the Ordinance.
They have therefore approached this Court for a redress of their grievance.
The appellants stored the goods in the warehouse on December 22, 1965.
When the shipment arrived, the appellants received the bill of lading and other documents of title from the bankers on or about August 23, 1965, and paid for the same.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
As the basic facts and the law governing them are quite similar, it will be sufficient to deal with the companymon point in companytroversy before us on the basis of the admitted facts, and to dispose of the appeals together.
The currency was devalued on June 6, 1966, and the Customs Amendment Ordinance, 1966, was promulgated on July 7, 1966, by which sections 14 and 15 of the Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were amended.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL J. These appeals by special leave arise out of an order of the Central Government dated January 16, 1969 by which six revisional applications of the appellants were dismissed, and a similar order dated March 19, 1969, in the remaining case.
8637 8642/68 and 1408/69.
The yarn was shipped to Bombay on the basis of a letter of credit in favour of the foreign suppliers.
of nylon yarn.
The appellants obtainted licences for the import of 102 cases of 3,000 Kgs.
of Revenue in Orders Nos.
1992 1997 and 2219 of 1969.
of India, Min.
of Finance Dept.
