2009 (4) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and other duties would have to be paid. It is submitted that such restrictions is in contravention of Article 14 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, a similar challenge to the same Notification dated 19.3.2008 was made before the Bombay High Court in Gopal Lal Sarda v. Union of India and ors. (W.P. No.6613 of 2008). The Bombay High Court quashed the Notification by its Division Bench judgment dated 20.10.2008. A copy of the judgment has been shown to the Court. The Division Bench rejected the respondents justification for the impugned Notification, in the following terms: - 6. So far as first contention is concerned, in our opinion the same does not appear to have a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ives from Sri Lanka is available only at Kolkata Port and not at other Ports. In our opinion, therefore, this reason given is incapable of being accepted, because it has no nexus with restricting the import to only Kolkata Port. 7. So far as second reason given is concerned, it is to be found in para 8 of the Reply, which reads as under: ``8. I say and submit that the present standard rate of customs duty on processed marble products under chapter 68 is 10% of the CIF value. Since no import of marble below the floor price of US$.2700 per cubic meter is allowed the effective duty on processed marble comes to US$.270 per cubic meter. By virtue of the trade agreement in the case of imports from Sri Lanka this duty becomes 0%. Therefore, an ....