TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountry. It is stated that the petitioners had imported RBD Palmolein which had arrived at port of destination and the same were cleared after payment of import duty of 85% of its value pursuant to the notification which was in existence on the said date. Major quantity of goods under the aforesaid consignment was removed from the warehouse, but removal of the balance quantity was denied. However, subsequently they received notice stating that in view of the notification under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which has come into effect from 3-8-2001, the tariff value in respect of RBD Palmolein had been raised to 372 US$ per metric ton and therefore the petitioners were liable to pay the difference in the tariff as they had paid the tariff as per the earlier notification. Being aggrieved by the said demand and the alleged notification, the Writ petitions were filed challenging the same alleging that the said notification was not published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 and the RBD Palmolein which had been imported by the petitioners had been subjected to duty as per the prevalent tariff rate and the alleged Gazette notification must have been published on 6-8-2001. It is stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was ordered that the Appellants are free to file solvent security as per Order dated 6-10-2001. On 22-11-2001, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Order had been partly complied with, but the authority had not accepted the solvent security and asked for Bank Guarantee in spite of the Orders dated 6-10-2001 and 6-11-2001. A Contempt Petition has been filed and notice has been issued. However, on 31-1-2002, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Respondents had already released goods in three cases and they are now insisting to pay 25% of the value of the goods to be released as Bank Guarantee in remaining cases and for that he submitted that as goods are going to perish, in the circumstances, the Appellants agreed to furnish 25% of the value of the goods to be released as Bank Guarantee. It was ordered to release the goods without prejudice to the pending Contempt Petition and to post the matter in March, 2002. Thereafter, on 18-4-2002 it was prayed that as per the orders, the Appellants may be permitted to re-export the balance of imported goods on the ground that since Appeals are pending the Respondents are not considering the Applications though gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was left open to be gone into in an appropriate case. However, the legal position is not in dispute. It is settled that alternative remedy will not be a bar if on the face of it, the issuance of notification is bad and ultra vires. It is also settled that the aggrieved person has no right to get the reasons communicated. What is necessary is, there should be reasons available on the record. At the same time reasons cannot be supplemented or added by filing an affidavit. However, this Court can always look into the reasons by calling records. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged notification was sent to be published in the Gazette and was available on the internet site www.cbec.gov.in of the respondent department, but the same was not available up to 4-8-2001 and notification is also bad as it does not include other classes of goods and only palmolein oil is singled out for additional tariff and trend of value of goods is not taken into account. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the notification dated 3-8-2001 was published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 itself and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 14 the goods impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regarding validity of notification from the date of issue. Hence petitioners are unable to produce documents showing exact date of publication and it is stated that it is for the respondents to show by producing relevant records that notification was published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 itself. It is also to be seen that in response to a clarification sought by the petitioners, the Assistant Controller (Business), Government of India, Department of Publication, Delhi vide his letter dated 10-9-2001 has informed the petitioners that issue No. 548 of the Official Gazette was made available for public sale on 6-8-2001 as per the records of the department. The issue number of the customs Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 3-8-2001 being 549, it is clearly established that the said Notification was made available for public sale on or after 6-8-2001, and therefore, the question of publication of the notification dated 3-8-2001 on the same day does not arise. It is also to be seen that on the basis of Bill of Entry for Home Consumption assessment was completed. Under the circumstances, no inference can be drawn that the notification dated 3-8-2001 was gazetted on the same day i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitions is false and that notification was published on 3-8-2001 itself. It is clear from the averments made in the affidavit dated 30-8-2002 and Annexure R1 produced along with the affidavit that Annexure R1 is not the Gazette notification, it is only a letter addressed to the Manager, Government of India Press, Mayapuri, New Delhi to publish the notification dated 3-8-2001 and no records have been produced to show the exact date on which notification was published in the Gazette. Annexure R1 would only reveal that the notification was forwarded to the Manager, Government of India Press to publish the same in the Official Gazette and there is no record further to show that pursuant to the said letter Gazette notification was published on 3-8-2001 itself. But on a perusal, it is clear from Annexure R1 that the date 6-8-2001 has been overwritten as 3-8-2001 and that apart in the letter sent to the Government of India Press on 3-8-2001 the said overwriting has not been attested or explained in the affidavit. Be that as it may. What is produced is the xerox copy of the letter and therefore the said letter is not helpful to show that it was published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 itself....