Customs exemption notification construed to cover earlier clearances where later amendment cured omitted port inclusion.

Exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Customs was held available for five Bills of Entry cleared through ICD Arakkonam before that port was specifically named, because the notification contemplated clearance through other ports by special order and was later amended to include additional ports. The Court rejected the objection that the Commissioner's power could operate only prospectively, applying the principle that a later substitution or amendment intended to cure an omission in a beneficial scheme may operate retrospectively or retroactively where fairness and the scheme's object so require. Denial of the exemption for earlier clearances alone was therefore unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 104/2009-Customs dated 14.09.2009 in respect of the five Bills of Entry cleared through ICD Arakkonam before that port was specifically included in the notification, and whether the Commissioner's power to permit clearance through another port could be exercised to cover those earlier imports.

Analysis: The exemption notification was not treated as an exhaustive exclusion of ports merely because ICD Arakkonam was not initially named, since the notification itself contemplated permission through other ports by special order and was subsequently amended to include additional ports. The earlier writ proceedings had already directed favourable consideration of the petitioner's five transactions. The objection that the Commissioner's power could operate only prospectively was rejected by applying the principle that a later substitution intended to cure an omission or extend an existing beneficial scheme may have retrospective or retroactive effect, particularly where fairness and the object of the exemption support such construction. The denial of the benefit only for past clearances, while allowing later clearances under the same scheme, was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the exemption benefit for the five Bills of Entry, and the impugned rejection was not sustainable.

---