1989 (2) TMI 123 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Duty Imposition, Rejects Exemption Claim, and Dismisses Appeal

The Court upheld the duty imposition under the Balance Trade of Payment Arrangement (BTPA) system, rejecting the appellant's claim for exemption from ... Import from Bangladesh - Estoppel - Appeal Issues: Bilateral trade agreement between India and Bangladesh, exemption from Customs Duty, imposition of duty under BTPA, principles of estoppel, natural justice in trade agreements, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.The judgment pertains to an appeal arising from a trade dispute following the cessation of East Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign state. The appellant imported goods under the 'Trade Against Limited Payment Arrangements' (LPA) agreement, which later transitioned to the 'Balance Trade of Payment Arrangement' (BTPA) where the exemption from Customs Duty for the imported goods was withdrawn. The appellant contested the imposition of duty under the BTPA system, claiming exemption under the previous LPA system. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the exemption under the LPA system ceased with its termination and could not be claimed under the BTPA system. The Court also dismissed the argument of estoppel, emphasizing that sovereign power and valid notifications cannot be overridden by estoppel.Furthermore, the appellant's counsel argued that the introduction of BTPA violated the principles of natural justice by not providing similar exemptions as goods imported from Pakistan. The Court disagreed, stating that the scope of the writ petition could not be extended to challenge the broader trade agreement. The Court noted that an appeal was already pending before the appellate authority, leading to the conclusion that the lower court was correct in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of upholding the duty imposition under the BTPA system, with no costs awarded. Justice Mahitosh Majumdar concurred with the judgment.