Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of an order and judgment passed by Mr. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak on 6th May, 1980.The appellant before us has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the said judgment and order.
(2.) After cessation of the territory formerly known as East Pakistan and after the emergence of the sovereign state of Bangladesh in or about 1971, the Government of India entered into a bilateral agreement with Bangladesh for import and export for a certain period, of specified commodities being the produce and or manufacture of either India an Bangladesh upto an overall monetary ceiling indicated against the commodities for the purpose of import and export between the two countries. Under various terms and conditions the arrangement had been arrived at the said trade agreement, namely bilateral trade agreement came to be known as "Trade Against Limited Payment, Arrangements", commonly known as L.P.A. arrangement. Such arrangement initially was inforce and/or in effect on and from 28th March, 1972 to 27th March, 1973. Subsequently the operative period of the said bilateral trade agreement was extended from time to time. The writ petitioner, the appellant herein had been importing an item called kapok from Bangladesh under the said LPA arrangement. Subsequently a new trade agreement, which came to be known and/or recognised as "Balance Trade of Payment Arrangement", commonly known as BTPA, came into effect from 28th September, 1973 and the earlier arrangement under LPA came to an end on 27th September, 1973. Under this BTPA the exemption granted from Customs Duty and/or Auxiliary Duty in respect of kapok imported from Bangladesh was withdrawn. The appellant-writ petitioner imported such goods from Bangladesh in the year 1975, that is, during the period which was covered by the said trade arrangement of BTPA but the appellant claimed exemption from such duty as was granted under the LPA system. Being aggrieved by the orders for payment of the necessary duties on those items, the writ petitioner, the present appellant, prefer of customs after serving due notice upon the present appellant had proceeded with the appeal, passed an order and after setting out various notifications and the reasons for upholding the assessment of duty, passed an order against the appellant. The appellant writ petitioner had taken out a writ petition before Mr. Justice T.K. Basu, as he then was, and obtained an interim order. Thereafter the said writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Court below and that had been disposed of against the writ petitioner. In the writ petition itself the writ petitioner did not challenge the subsequent notifications which withdrew the exemption granted in respect of import of Kapok from Bangladesh. On the contrary, only the petitioner prayed for an order directing the respondent authorities not to enforce the imposition of duty which had already been done.
(3.) Mr. Gopal Chakravorty, the learned lawyer on behalf of the appellant, contended that by way of correspondence the notification already in existence could not be amended to the detriment of the writ petitioner who had been exempted from payment of the necessary duties for importation of Kapok from Bangladesh. We failed to appreciate this submission of Mr. Chakravorty inasmuch as it is not by any letter that imposition of any duty has been made but it is only by way of clarification was sought for by such correspondence from the Ministry of Finance. There it has been clearly stated that when the LPA system has come to an end and a subsequent agreement, that is, BTPA has come into effect and under the BTPA system inasmuch as the State of Bangladesh did not give the necessary exemption. Such exemption for importation of Kapok from Bangladesh had been withdrawn. Apart from that, the fact remains that the writ petitioner, the present appellant, had imported those goods admittedly not under the LPA system but under the BTPA system where no such exemption has been granted. Mr. Chakravorty relied upon the notification dated 11th May, 1974 and submitted that under that notification as per item No. 89 being No. 127 Customs, dated 28th November, 1972, the appellant was still entitled to the exemption from payment of the necessary duties for importation of Kapok from Bangladesh. We are unable to accept that contention of Mr. Chakrabarty inasmuch as that Notification indicates that such exemption could only be granted where Kapok was imported into India from Bangladesh in pursuance of the LPA system. Such arrangement has come to an end, which is admitted by Mr. Chakravorty, on 27th September, 1973. Then how can he while importing Kapok from Bangladesh in the year 1975 under the BTPA system claim exemption for the LPA system. Mr. Chakravorty further submitted that inasmuch as at the time of importation of the said goods a certain officer of the Customs has given a 'Nil' certificate, the respondents are estopped from contending otherwise and the principles of estoppel and the laws analogous thereto should be applied in the instant case debarring the respondent authorities from imposing the duty. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Chakravorty inasmuch as there could not be an estoppel in the exercise of the sovereign power and/or against a statute/or valid notification issued that order.;