Promissory estoppel cannot secure project-import assessment unless the plant is specifically covered by the tariff entry.

Promissory estoppel did not compel customs authorities to grant project-import assessment where the sponsoring authority's endorsement was only conditional and the customs officer retained an independent statutory duty to assess eligibility. Heading 84.66 was also confined to imports for a specifically notified industrial plant or project, and a film-processing laboratory could not qualify merely because it was an industrial activity. In the absence of evidence that the laboratory was specifically covered by the tariff entry, the claim for concessional assessment failed and the refusal to register the contract was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the customs authority was bound by promissory estoppel to grant project-import assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) whether the petitioner's film-processing laboratory was a specified industrial plant entitled to assessment under Heading 84.66.

Issue (i): whether the customs authority was bound by promissory estoppel to grant project-import assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The relevant import policy and handbook required endorsement by the sponsoring authority, but the customs officer retained the statutory duty to determine independently whether the import qualified for concessional assessment. The recommendation of the sponsoring authority was conditional and did not amount to a clear and unequivocal promise by the customs department. Since no governmental authority had promised that the petitioner would necessarily receive project-import treatment, and since classification and assessment were within the customs officer's own jurisdiction, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was not attracted.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and the customs authority was not bound to grant the claimed concessional assessment.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner's film-processing laboratory was a specified industrial plant entitled to assessment under Heading 84.66.

Analysis: Heading 84.66 applied only to auxiliary equipment and related imports required for the initial setting up or substantial expansion of a specified industrial plant or other notified project. Although a film-processing laboratory could be regarded as an industrial activity, the decisive requirement was that the plant must be specifically covered by the tariff heading. No material showed that the petitioner's laboratory had been specified by the Central Government for the purpose of that heading. The word "specified" in the tariff entry was treated as substantive and not redundant, so the import could not qualify merely because it related to an industrial activity.

Conclusion: The petitioner's laboratory was not shown to be a specified industrial plant within Heading 84.66, so the claim for project-import assessment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the refusal to register the contract and to extend project-import assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Concessional project-import assessment under a tariff heading limited to a specified industrial plant cannot be claimed on promissory estoppel or on a general characterization of the business as industrial unless the plant is itself shown to fall within the specified category required by the tariff entry.

---