High Court of Bombay rules in favor of petitioners in interest dispute under Section 28AB.

The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioners in a case involving a dispute over the demand for interest under Section 28AB and Notification No.47/1996-CUS (NT). The court held that the pre-conditions for demanding interest were not met, emphasizing that Section 28AB could not be applied retrospectively. As the authorities did not follow the required procedures for claiming interest, the court made the rule absolute, disposing of the petition in favor of the petitioners.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim for exemption from customs duty under Notification No.64/88-CUS for imported medical equipment.
2. Seizure of imported medical equipment and initiation of inquiry under Customs Act 1962.
3. Confiscation of medical equipment, imposition of penalty, and demand for payment of customs duty.
4. Claim for payment of fine and interest almost 12 years after the initial order.
5. Dispute over the applicability of Section 28AB and Notification No.47/1996-CUS (NT) for interest payment.
6. Legal challenge regarding the demand for interest under Section 28AB.
7. Compliance with pre-conditions for demanding interest under Section 28AB.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners imported medical equipment in 1989 and 1990, claiming exemption from customs duty under Notification No.64/88-CUS. The Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) later withdrew the Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued to the petitioners, leading to a dispute.

2. Following an inquiry, the medical equipment was seized under the Customs Act 1962, and a show cause notice was issued in 1998 for confiscation and penalty. The petitioners responded and also filed a civil suit challenging the legality of the notice, which was later rejected.

3. In 2003, the show cause notice was disposed of by ordering confiscation of the medical equipment, imposing a penalty, and directing the payment of customs duty. Despite not being given an opportunity to show cause on the payment of customs duty, the petitioners paid the amount.

4. After almost 12 years, the petitioners were asked to pay a fine and interest, which they disputed, citing no provision for interest payment at the time of import and the demand being time-barred.

5. The dispute centered around the applicability of Section 28AB and Notification No.47/1996-CUS (NT) for claiming interest. The respondents argued for interest payment under Section 28AB, while the petitioners contested the retrospective application of this provision.

6. The court referred to a similar case where it was held that Section 28AB could not be invoked if it did not exist at the time of import. The court agreed with this view and analyzed the conditions for demanding interest under Section 28AB.

7. It was concluded that the pre-conditions for demanding interest under Section 28AB were not met in this case, as the required notice under Section 28 had not been issued. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute and disposing of the petition.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the demand for interest under Section 28AB and Notification No.47/1996-CUS (NT) was not valid as the pre-conditions for demanding interest were not met. The court highlighted that Section 28AB could not be applied retrospectively and required specific allegations and procedures to be followed before claiming interest. As the necessary steps were not taken by the authorities, the court made the rule absolute, disposing of the petition in favor of the petitioners.

---