Court upholds duty exemption decision, rejects appeal based on special circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed by the Court, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the writ petition challenging duty exemption disparity. The appellants' argument for special circumstances based on an interim order was deemed insufficient as they had the option to sell at a higher price to cover the duty rate. The Court emphasized that voluntary undertakings do not create obligations and clarified that exemptions cannot be extended to others affected by discrimination. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to pay costs to the respondents.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order dismissing writ petition on grounds of discrimination in duty exemption and equity arising from interim order.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellants imported liquid caustic soda and were required to pay duty at a rate of 92.5%, while the State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd. paid duty at a reduced rate of 10% due to an exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act. The appellants filed a writ petition claiming discrimination and seeking the same exemption or nullification of the exemption granted to the 3rd respondent. The appellants argued for special circumstances favoring them despite the precedent set by a previous judgment (M. Jhangir Bhatusha's case).

The appellants relied on an interim order that obligated them to sell caustic soda at a specific price, limiting their ability to cover the higher duty rate. They argued that this created an equity in their favor. However, the Court held that the interim order was based on the appellants' application for stay of duty recovery, and they had the option to sell at a higher price and seek relief. Acting upon the interim order did not create an equity, and no special circumstances existed in their favor.

The Court emphasized that an undertaking given to the Court is not an imposed obligation but a voluntary promise. The precedent from Jhangir Bhatusha's case did not support the appellants' argument for special circumstances. Additionally, the Court clarified that if an exemption is found arbitrary or discriminatory, it can be struck down, but the scope cannot be expanded to cover others affected by the discrimination.

Referring to a previous judgment, the Court highlighted that if a benefit or remission is found unlawful, the proper course is to strike it down without extending it to unrelated parties. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that a previous allowance had been set aside on a review petition. The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents.

---