Asrar Ahmed vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

S.P. Kurdukar, J.—Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Lokur waives service for the respondents. By consent petition placed on record and called out for hearing.

The petitioner imported the goods on 19.1.1988 and on such imported goods, under the notification dated 9th of July 1985 as amended by Notification No. 97/87-Cus. dated 1st March 1987 (Exh. B.), petitioner was required to pay rate of duty at 40 per cent. This notification remained in force till August 1989.

On 19.1.1989 petitioner filed bill of entry and claimed clearance of the goods on the basis of the notification at Ex.B. On 17th of March 1989 the Assistant Collector of Customs, however, permitted the petitioner to avail the rate of duty in terms of notification Ex. B but, however, he put a condition and it reads as under:

...I have been directed to say that for the purpose of benefit of the said exemption notification, you are required to execute a bond undertaking use of the goods in leather industry supported by a Bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty.

The petitioner did not agree with this communication and went on making the representations to the authority to allow him to clear the goods at the concessional rate of duty in terms of notification Ex.B. In the meantime there was change in the law by amending to said notification Ex.B. and the rate of duty was enhanced. Now the petitioner is required to pay the higher rate of duty under the amended notification.

After hearing the parties and after perusing the return filed on behalf of the respondents we are of the opinion that the condition sought to be imposed by the Assistant Collector in his communication dated 17th March 1989 for a bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty appears to us not supported by any material on record. In this view of the matter the condition of bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty must to be set aside. The respondents will allow the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of rate of duty under the notification at Exh. B provided the petitioner executes a bond and undertaking of the use of the imported goods in Leather industry.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Detention certificate prayed but refused.