Equal treatment in customs duty concessions requires justification for any differential fiscal benefit between similarly situated importers.

A fiscal concession under the Customs Act may not be denied to one importer where another similarly situated importer has received the same exemption and the Union offers no material justification for the distinction. The equal treatment principle applied because the public-interest basis for granting the concession to the other importer was not explained or rebutted by counter-affidavit. On those facts, the importer was entitled to parity in customs duty treatment, including refund of any excess duty paid, and the differential treatment was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to the same customs duty exemption granted to another importer under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, and whether denial of such parity amounted to discriminatory treatment.

Analysis: The exemption had been granted to another importer on the ground of public interest, but the Union of India filed no counter-affidavit either before the High Court or before the Court to explain or justify the differential treatment. In the absence of any material showing a valid basis for the distinction, the appellant's complaint of discrimination could not be answered against it. On the facts, the appellant was entitled to the same treatment in the matter of duty on import of caustic soda.

Conclusion: The appellant succeeded and was held entitled to duty at the same concessional rate as granted to the other importer, with refund of any excess amount paid.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on the peculiar facts, the High Court's order was set aside, and the appellant obtained parity in customs duty treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the State grants a fiscal concession to one similarly situated importer and offers no material justification for denying the same benefit to another, the denial is unsustainable and equal treatment must follow.

---