Court rules duty exemption on imported pulses not applicable upon entry into territorial waters

The court ruled against the petitioners in a case concerning the rescission of duty exemption on imported pulses. It was determined that duty liability arises upon goods being imported into India and mixed with the mass of goods, not solely upon entry into territorial waters. The court rejected the petitioners' claim for total exemption based on the publication date of the new notification and dismissed their plea of promissory estoppel. The petitioners were granted six months to pay the duty on imported pulses, with the condition of maintaining bank guarantees during this period.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification rescinding duty exemption on imported pulses.
2. Determining the effective date of imposition of duty under the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of chargeability of duty upon entry of goods into India.
4. Consideration of promissory estoppel in relation to duty exemption promises.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners imported pulses under an earlier notification exempting them from duty, which was later rescinded by a new notification imposing a 25% ad valorem duty. The petitioners argued that the new notification came into effect only upon publication on 17/18th February, 1987, and sought total exemption based on this claim.

2. The court found it unnecessary to delve into the effective date of the new notification. Instead, the critical issue was whether duty liability arises upon the entry of vessels into territorial waters or upon lodging the bill of entry. The petitioners needed to establish that duty is chargeable based on the entry date for total exemption.

3. The court rejected the petitioners' argument, citing previous judgments that duty liability arises upon goods being imported into India and mixed with the mass of goods, not merely upon entry into territorial waters. The date of unloading goods is crucial for chargeability, as per the Customs Act provisions.

4. The petitioners also raised a plea of promissory estoppel, contending that the promise of duty exemption led to their imports. However, this argument was not pursued further due to precedent judgments. The court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioners six months to pay the duty on imported pulses, provided they maintain bank guarantees during this period.

---