Customs practice and prior public notice govern adverse changes in import treatment, with redemption fine remitted on settled practice.

Customs authorities should not abruptly depart from a consistent clearance practice to the detriment of an importer where similar goods had earlier been allowed clearance and no advance public notice preceded the change. On the facts noted, the importer had opened the letter of credit before the departmental clarification relied upon by revenue, and the existing understanding at the Custom House supported the import. The stated legal point is that a prejudicial shift in customs treatment should be accompanied by prior notice, and redemption fine may be remitted where the importer acted on the prevailing practice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine imposed on import of feed grade vitamin was liable to be interfered with in view of the prevailing customs practice and absence of advance public notice of a change in treatment.

Analysis: The goods had been imported under a letter of credit opened before the departmental clarification relied upon by the revenue. The record showed that similar clearances had earlier been permitted by the Custom House on the basis of the then prevailing understanding, and the change in approach had not been preceded by any public notice. In these circumstances, the existing practice could not be abruptly altered to the prejudice of the importer.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was remitted and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where customs authorities have followed a consistent practice in permitting clearance of similar goods, a change adverse to the importer should be preceded by public notice, and redemption fine may be remitted if the importer acted on the existing practice.

---