M R F LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, the question raised relates to the liability to pay on the'natural rubber'imported for the petitioners, additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 51 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Item-wise'natural rubber'bears different names and in the present batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with the natural rubber bearing the name'smoked sheets'. IN some cases, the petitioners have paid the additional duty through the State trading Corporation, which was the agency for the import of this product, since the said product was a canalised one. The State trading Corporation, when it collected the price from the petitioners, the additional duty was part and parcel of the price paid by the petitioners. IN those cases, the petitioners have asked for refund. The petitioners also apprehending levy and collection of additional duty have asked forwrits of mandamusto forbear the respondents from so levying and collecting the additional duty in respect of imports for which such payments were not yet made. IN some of writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of declaration that the levy of duty on'natural rubber'is illegal.

(2.) IN support of the prayers in the writ petitions, Mr. Habibulla Badsha , learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in majority of the writ petitions, followed by Mr. Uttama Reddi , learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions, would advance the following points, which I shall deal with in seriatim.

(3.) COMING to W. P. Nos. 1642 and 1643 of 1983, Mr. M. Uttam a Reddi , learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that there was, in fact, a notification under Section 25 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, exempting the levy and collection of the customs duty and the additional duty in respect of'natural rubber'of the quantity of 400 tonnes. There is no dispute about the same. If so, by the very force of the notification under Section 25 (2) of the customs Act, there could not be levy and collection of additional duty on this quantity. With reference to the residue, the principle discussed above will govern and these writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. I am told that some of the petitioners have furnished Bank guarantees to cover the proposed levy. In view of the fact that the writ petitions have been allowed as above, the Bank guarantees, if they are still alive, shall stand cancelled.