It further stated that the packing material was number subject to any separate duty.
Another show cause numberice was issued to the respondent Company on June 21, 1980 by the Collector, Bombay under Section 124 of the Customs Act calling upon them to explain why the stainless steel drums should number be companyfiscated as the import of stainless steel was prohibited.
The foreign suppliers supplied the goods in stainless steel companytainers, and same were allowed to be cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act.
The Respondent Company filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the show cause numberices.
The respondent Company submitted reply to the numberice.
Subsequently, a show cause numberice under Section 28 of the Customs Act was issued by the Assistant Collector, Bombay to the respondent Company on the ground that the stainless steel drums were subject to levy of custom duty.
In its reply the respondent Company asserted that it had number imported any stainless steel instead the refined oil was supplied by the foreign suppliers in stainless steel companytainers in accordance with the internationally accepted trade practice.
The respondent Company was number liable to pay any duty on the steel companytainers treating the same as a separate item.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 22.8.1990 allowing the respondents writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution and quashing the show cause numberices issued to the respondent under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
N. Singh, CJI and N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.
The respondent Company imported 13,500 MT of RBD Palm Oil under Open General Licence from Singapore between November 1978 and March 1979.
