Customs exemption discrimination claim failed where preferential treatment for M.M.T.C. had a discernible basis and no enforceable parity right existed.

The customs exemption issued under Section 25(2) was upheld as being based on stated reasons for extending relief to M.M.T.C., and those reasons were not shown to be irrelevant or extraneous. The petitioners could not claim the same exemption merely because they imported aluminium around the same time, since the differential treatment had a discernible basis and was not unconstitutional discrimination. The earlier approval of preferential treatment in favour of STC/MMTC was treated as governing the challenge, so the petitioners had no enforceable right to extension of the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to claim the same customs duty exemption as that granted to M.M.T.C. under the impugned notification, and whether the differential treatment amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.

Analysis: The exemption notification was issued under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act and recorded reasons for extending relief to M.M.T.C. Those reasons were not shown to be irrelevant or extraneous. The differential treatment was therefore supported by a discernible basis and could not be characterised as discriminatory merely because the petitioners imported aluminium around the same time. The preference in favour of STC/MMTC had already been upheld in earlier decisions, which were treated as governing the present challenge.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to claim extension of the exemption granted to M.M.T.C., and the challenge on the ground of discrimination failed.

---