Promissory estoppel protected concessional duty under an export-import policy despite delay in the Customs notification.

Delay in issuing a Customs Act notification could not defeat an importer's entitlement to concessional duty where the export-import policy, issued under statutory authority for a fixed period, promised that concession and the importer had acted on it by obtaining the licence and importing capital goods. The later differential duty demand arose only because the notification was delayed; that delay was treated as a ministerial lapse and not a basis to deny the policy benefit. The authorities were found to have acted contrary to the Government's own policy, and promissory estoppel applied on these facts to prevent withdrawal of the concession.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in issuing the notification under the Customs Act could defeat the importer's entitlement to concessional duty under the Export Import policy and whether the Government was bound by its policy promise.

Analysis: The export-import policy was issued under statutory authority and was intended to operate for a fixed period. The importer acted on the policy, obtained the licence, imported the capital goods, and was initially granted the concessional rate. The later demand for differential duty arose only because the notification under the Customs Act was issued with delay. Since the notification was issued in consonance with the policy to give effect to the promised concession, the delay was held to be a ministerial lapse that could not defeat the policy benefit. The authorities were found to have acted contrary to the Government's own policy, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied against the Government on these facts.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to the concessional duty and the demand for differential duty could not be sustained.

---