Skip to content


Stretch Fibres (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCustoms
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petition No. 1419 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1985(21)ELT400(Bom)
ActsCustoms Act, 1962 - Sections 25
AppellantStretch Fibres (India) Ltd. and Others
RespondentUnion of India and Others
Excerpt:
acts/rules/order: customs act, 1962 - section 25 - - 11(ii). 6. the petitioner-company obtained import licences as per the scheme of registration of contracts contained in paragraph 146 of the import policy of the year 1978-1979, in the months of september, october, november 1978, and also in february 1979. these replenishment import licences issued by the respondents 3 and 4 were endorsed with value restriction, viz. 2 rejected the petitioners claim for exemption on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the provisions of the notification of june 19, 1978 which required the endorsement of both the value as well as the quantity. 120/78, dated june 19, 1978. in view of this statement, the petition was adjourned to july 9, 1979. however, as by that date, the licences were.....1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution challenging the action of the respondents withholding the exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of certain goods imported by the petitioners-company pursuant to the import policy for april 1973/march 1979.2. the petitioners are exporters of nylon fabrics, an item falling under entry k. 11(ii) of the import trade control policy, vol. ii, for april 1977 - march 1978 (section ii - pages 71-72). they are also registered exporters of the said item under the scheme for registration of contracts in pursuance of paragraph 44 of the import policy of 1977-1978 and paragraph 146 of the import policy of 1978-1979.3. it is provided in paragraph 44 of the policy of 1977-1978 that, in respect of exports made in the execution of.....
Judgment:

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents withholding the exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of certain goods imported by the petitioners-company pursuant to the import policy for April 1973/March 1979.

2. The petitioners are exporters of nylon fabrics, an item falling under Entry K. 11(ii) of the Import Trade Control Policy, Vol. II, for April 1977 - March 1978 (Section II - pages 71-72). They are also registered exporters of the said item under the scheme for registration of contracts in pursuance of paragraph 44 of the Import Policy of 1977-1978 and paragraph 146 of the Import Policy of 1978-1979.

3. It is provided in paragraph 44 of the Policy of 1977-1978 that, in respect of exports made in the execution of registered contracts, the exporters will be eligible for the same levels of support in respect of import replenishment and other benefits under the Import Policy for Registered Exporters, as were permissible on the date of such contracts with overseas buyers, Under the said Policy in respect of the item falling under Entry K. 11(ii), there was value-restriction of 50% of the f.o.b. value of the exported item for the purpose of import replenishment.

4. Paragraph 146 of the Import Policy for the year 1978-1979 provides that a Registered Exporter is eligible to claim import replenishment at the same rate and for the import of the same items as were permissible on the date of the firm contract with the overseas party.

5. As mentioned above, the petitioners' contract was registered in the month of March 1978 and they were entitled to import replenishment at the rate of 50% of the f.o.b. value of the goods exported by them which fell within the Entry K. 11(ii) of the Import Policy for the year 1977-1978. Under the Import Policy for the year 1978-1979, certain quantity restrictions on the import of polyester-nylon yarn were introduced, but these quantity-restrictions were not put in respect of the exports covered by Entry K. 11(ii).

6. The petitioner-company obtained import licences as per the scheme of registration of contracts contained in paragraph 146 of the Import Policy of the year 1978-1979, in the months of September, October, November 1978, and also in February 1979. These replenishment import licences issued by the respondents 3 and 4 were endorsed with value restriction, viz., 50% of the f.o.b. value only. The quantity restrictions were obviously not mentioned, because, in respect of such imports, the quantity restrictions did not apply.

7. In the month of January 1979, the petitioner-company imported 3,200 cases of polyester filament yarn valued at Rs. 71,328/-. The petitioners claimed exemption from duty on the basis of certain notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. However, the custom authorities refused to grant exemption from duty on the ground that the licence was not in conformity with the Notification No. 120/78, dated 19th June, 1978, issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. It appears that the Government of Indian issued notifications from time to time under Section 25 of the Customs Act granting exemption from Customs duty on the import of polyester filament yarn. The first such notification is dated February 7, 1977, whereby exemption from payment of duty was granted in respect of the nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn imported into India under the public scheme according to the terms and conditions of Import replenishment licences issued under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, against export of nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn. It was provided in the notification that the importer must produce a certificate from the authority issuing the import replenishment licence or an endorsement by the said authority on the said licence specifying the value of the goods allowed to be imported under the said licence against exports of the product mentioned therein. This notification was superseded by the subsequent notification of July 1, 1977, whereunder the items of import entitled to exemption from duty were enumerated. This notification also provided for the preliminary condition regarding the certificate or endorsement of value of the goods allowed to be imported under the licence. This notification was amended by another notification of July 15, 1977. Suffice it to state that both these notifications of July 1, 1977 and July 15, 1977 did not alter the position under the notification of July 1, 1977 so far as the import of polyester filament yarn by the petitioners is concerned and the entitlement to exemption from duty was limited to 50% of f.o.b. value.

8. A fresh notification in supersession of the earlier notifications granting exemption from customs duty on imports of polyester/nylon filament yarn on exports of specified goods came to be issued on June 10, 1978. The only condition put by this new notification was that the importer must produce a certificate from the authorities issuing the licence or an endorsement by the said authorities on the licences specifying both the quantity and value of the nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn allowed to be imported under the licences against the exports of the product. It appears that in respect of the imports made by the petitioners in January 1979, the petitioners had applied on December 30, 1978, for an endorsement under the notification of July 15, 1977. According, only the value endorsement was made by the authorities on the licence. As mentioned above, by this time, the notification of June 19, 1978 came into force which required the endorsement of both the value and the quantity for exemption of duty with the result that the customs authorities refused granting exemption from duty as the licence was not in conformity with the notification of June 19, 1978. There was a considerable correspondence thereafter between the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners sought a speaking order from the customs authorities to ascertain their exact stand, and ultimately, by the order dated May 22, 1979 the respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioners claim for exemption on the ground that the same was not in conformity with the provisions of the notification of June 19, 1978 which required the endorsement of both the value as well as the quantity. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition on June 22, 1979.

9. The matter came up for admission before Sawant, J. on July 2, 1979, when the respondents agreed to endorse the licences in accordance with the Policy and the Notification No. 120/78, dated June 19, 1978. In view of this statement, the petition was adjourned to July 9, 1979. However, as by that date, the licences were not endorsed by the respondents, the petition was adjourned to July 13, 1979, and therefore, to July 20, 1979. By then, it appears that the respondents endorsed the licences by cancelling the earlier license-endorsement of value already made and made a fresh endorsement by applying the Public Notice 14/79, dated February 29, 1979. This Public Notice purports to limit the quantity as well as the value of the imports of the nylon filament yarn/polyester filament yarn to the extent of 1.2 kgs. against 1 kg. of the respective yarn certified to have been used in the product exported at 32% of the f.o.b. value of the respective exports. The petitioners contended that said public notice was wrongly applied to their case. The petition was admitted and rule nisi was issued.

10. The above narration of facts which are not in dispute would show that the petitioners are Registered Exporters under the scheme for registration of contracts as per paragraph 146 of the Import Policy of 1978-1979 and they were entitled to import replenishment to the extent of 50% of the f.o.b. value in respect of their contract registered by them in March 1978 when the policy for the year 1977-1978 was in force. By the successive notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, dated February 7, 1977, July 1, 1977 and July 15, 1977, the petitioners were entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of the imports of Polyester filament yarn made by them subject to the condition that the petitioners should get their licences endorsed with value from the Import Export Controller. It is common ground that the petitioners' exports were covered by Entry K. 11(ii) and so far as the import replenishment in respect of which licences were issued to the petitioners, no quantity restrictions were put, and they could import the goods in question upto 50% of the f.o.b. value of the goods exported. The notification of June 19, 1978, issued under Section 25 of the Act, however, required the licences to be endorsed with value and quantity for exemption. However, in view, of the fact that the petitioners were admittedly entitled to the import replenishment limited to 50% of the f.o.b. value without any restriction of the quantity the requirement of the endorsement regarding the quantity could not be said to apply to the import of the goods falling under Entry K11(ii) made by the petitioners.

11. This notification dated June 19, 1978 was issued in supersession of the earlier notification of July 1, 1977. The only material relevant change made in the notification is that the importers were required to produce a certificate from the authority issuing the replenishment licence or an endorsement by the said authority on the licence specifying both the quantity and the value of the nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn or both, as the case may be, allowed to be imported under the said licence against the export of products mentioned in the notification. The licensing authority had made the endorsement relating only to the value in view of the petitioners' request for endorsement on the basis of Notification of July 1, 1977, and in view of the import policy for the year 1977-1978-1979, under which the petitioners was given the import replenishment licence. There could be no doubt that the licensing authority could have, while making the endorsement, either clarified in the endorsement that there being no restriction on the quantity of import, the endorsement was made only relating to the value only, or, it could have endorsed the very quantity of the goods which was actually imported, because the goods were imported pursuant to the policy and the replenishment licence was granted for import of the polyester yarn on the basis of export of goods falling under Item K. 11(ii) of the policy. As the import policy had placed no restriction on the quantity of import but it merely limited the import on the basis of the 50% of the f.o.b. value of the exported goods. However, it is the case of the respondents that the original endorsement of the value was cancelled and a new endorsement was made on the petitioners' licence on the basis of a public notice dated February 28, 1979 which, according to them, limited the permissible import for the purposes of the benefit of the notification of June 19, 1978 relating to both the quantity and the value as specified in the public notice. The relevant paragraph 3 of the said public notice on which reliance is placed on behalf of the respondents runs as under :

'In order to enable the eligible exporters to get the benefit of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 120-Customs F. No. 609/52/78-DBK, dated 19-6-1978 (copy of which is attached herewith) it has been decided to grant import replenishment licences against the exports of products referred to in the said notification, made on or after 1-4-1978, to enable imports of Nylon Filament Yarn/Polyester Filament Yarn to the extent of 1.2 kgs. against 1 kg. of the respective yarn certified to have been used in the product exported at 32% of the f.o.b. value of the respective exports. Both value and quantity shall be limiting factors..........'

The short question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the licensing authority was justified in making an endorsement of both the quantity and value on the petitioners' Licence in terms of the said paragraph 3 of the public notice, dated February 28, 1979, and whether the petitioners could be entitled to exemption from duty on the goods of the value of 50% of the f.o.b. value of the export, and the quantity would not be a relevant question.

12. Mr. Andhyarujina, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioners were duty qualified for the import replenishment licences of the value of 50% of the f.o.b. value of the export. They had a registered contract in respect of the export of the goods falling under Item K. 11(ii) of the Policy. Under the said policy, they were entitled to import polyester filament yarn of the 50% value of the f.o.b. value of the goods exported by them, and their case was squarely covered by the notification of June 19, 1978 to enable them to claim the total exemption from payment of the excise duty on the import of their goods in question. He submitted that the licensing authority was bound to endorse the licence in accordance with the scheme for replenishment given to a registered exporter and the value of the goods was correctly endorsed by them on the licence. He also urged that so far as the petitioners' imported goods in question are concerned, the quantity of the goods was not at all material and the licensing authority had to note the same formally to comply with the requirement of the notification of June 19, 1978 under Section 25 for the purposes of claiming exemption of duty. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 was not justified in rejecting the petitioners' claim for exemption from duty merely because of the absence of the endorsement of the quantity having regard to the fact that under the relevant import policy the petitioners had a right to import the goods in question. He also contended that there was no justification for applying the public notice of February 28, 1979 to the case of the petitioners, particularly in view of the fact that the export as well as the import of the goods had taken place prior to the date of the public notice. Even the endorsement regarding the value of the licences was made on January 9, 1979 before the public notice dated February 28, 1979 came into force. He contended that in the first place, in terms, the public notice has a prospective operation, and it does not apply to replenishment licences issued before the date of the notice, and, secondly, in any event, the petitioners could be entitled to invoke the rule of promissory estoppel on the facts of this case. He submitted that under the terms of the import policy relating to the registered exporters, the replenishment is to be determined with reference to the date of the contract which is registered and the extend of replenishment cannot be diminished as is clear from the Policy contained in paragraph 16 of the Import Policy of 1977-78 and paragraph 146 of 1978-79.

13. Mr. Talyarkhan appearing for the respondents repelled these arguments on behalf of the petitioners by contending that there is no question of promissory estoppel arising in this case. He submitted that the policy for import of the polyester filament yarn as envisaged in the Import Policy for the years in question has nothing to do with the policy of granting exemption of payment of duty under Section 25 of the Customs Act. In other words, he submitted that the imports limited to the value of 50% would be perfectly legitimate, but still that would not be a relevant consideration for applying the policy underlying the notification of June 19, 1978, under Section 25 of the Customs Act read with the public notice dated February 28, 1979. According to him, merely because the import of the goods is legal and permissible and is in conformity with the import policy, it does not necessarily follow that the petitioner was entitled to claim exemption from payment of duty under the notification issued under Section 25. Mr. Talyarkhan contended that the notification of June 19, 1978 envisaged a policy on the basis of which exemption for payment of duty could be claimed or granted and the policy was that the claimant was bound to obtain endorsement of the licensing authority both pertaining to the quantity and the value, and not merely the value, as was the case under the earlier notification dated July 1, 1977. He further contended that the notification of June 19, 1978 conferred an absolute discretion on the licensing authority to make the relevant endorsement or not, till the policy in that behalf was laid down under the public notice of February 28, 1979. In the alternative, he submitted that the notification of June 19, 1978 under Section 25 must be read along with the public notice of February 28, 1979 and the import permissible for the purposes of claiming exemption from payment of duty must be limited to both the quantity and value as prescribed in the public notice, and therefore, the endorsement of quantity and value which has been made by the licensing authority in accordance with the policy laid down in the public notice cannot be questioned. He also submitted that there is no representation made to the petitioners that the goods exported will be exempted from duty. The claim for exemption of duty must be based on the notification of June 19, 1978, which required the licensing authority to endorse both the quantity and value. This again, according to him, is controlled by the terms of the public notice dated February 28, 1979 whereunder the limitation was placed both on the quantity and the value for the purpose of claiming exemption under the notification of June 19, 1978.

14. It is not disputed that the petitioners can claim exemption from payment of duty only in terms of the notification dated June 19, 1978. It is common ground that the item imported in this case is polyester filament yarn and the import is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the import replenishment licence issued under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, against the export of nylon filament yarn fabric as stated in the notification. The only question is whether under the notification, it is necessary that the importers have to produce a certificate of the authority issuing the import licence or an endorsement on the licence specifying the quantity and value of the polyester filament yarn allowed to be imported under the licence against the export of the said yarn. There are good reasons for holding that the requirement of endorsement regarding quantity may not be necessary to be complied with in each and every case. Under the Import Policy, it is noticed that in respect of certain items of exports, the entitlement to import replenishment is both limited to quantity and value, but in some cases, the restriction relates only to the value irrespective of the quantity. In the cases where under the Import Policy the entitlement to the import replenishment licence is limited both to the quantity and value, it would be obviously necessary for the authorities issuing the licence to make an endorsement both relating to the quantity and value; but so far as the cases where the permissible import is limited only to the value are concerned, there is not particular point in specifying the quantity of the goods. It was, however, urged by Mr. Talyarkhan that the Import Policy has no relevance for the purpose of determining the entitlement to exemption from duty under Section 25 and what has to be seen is whether the importer has complied with the conditions laid down in the notification. The importer, therefore, must obtain the endorsement relating both to the quantity and the value from the licensing authority. He even contended that it was entirely within the discretion of the licensing authority to make an endorsement of the quantity and value as he deems fit. In other words, he contended that the entitlement for import of a particular value or a particular quantity under the Import Policy would have no bearing whatsoever on the question of consideration of the entitlement to exemption from payment of duty. It is impossible to accept this contention that the licensing authority could act on its sweet-will without being guided by any policy while making the endorsement. The wording of the notification clearly shows that the endorsement specifying the quantity and value has to be in respect of the yarn allowed to be imported under the licence against the export of the product referred to in the notification. The material portion of the notification runs as under :

'... Provided that the importer produces a certificate from the authority issuing the import replenishment licence or an endorsement by the said Authority on the said licence specifying the quantity and value of the nylon filament yarn or polyester filament yarn or both, as the case may be, allowed to be imported under the said licence against exports of the aforesaid products.'

This wording clearly implies that the endorsement has to be made in respect of the entire goods imported without any qualification. Of course, the import has to be under the relevant import policy which allows the import of the various items. It is impossible to accept the condition of Mr. Talyarkhan that the licensing authority could act arbitrarily according to his will without being guided by any policy in the matter of making endorsement. In my view, the notification under Section 25 has to be read in the light of the policy under which the goods are imported. Mr. Talyarkhan even went to the length of contending that the petitioners had to blame themselves for seeking endorsement of the value on the basis of the notification of July 1, 1977 although at the time when they asked for endorsement this notification was superseded by the notification dated June 19, 1978. He submitted that if the respondents 3 and 4 made an endorsement relating to the value restriction only, it was because the petitioners themselves had applied for endorsement on the notification of July 1, 1977. According to him, if the petitioners had asked for the endorsement on the basis of the notification of June 19, 1978 the respondents 3 and 4, the licensing authorities, would have given the requisite endorsement of both the value and the quantity in respect of the entire goods imported by the petitioners, because, at that time, the public notice of February 29, 1979 was not issued. There is no merit in this contention because it must be assumed that the licensing authorities were not aware of the fact that the notification of July 1, 1977 was superseded by the notification of June 19, 1978. It is obvious that the endorsement must be treated as one being made on the basis of the Notification of June 19, 1978. If that is so, the endorsement, though restricted to value, was sufficient and valid, because the endorsement regarding quantity was not material in any event till the public notice of February 28, 1979. It is not the case of the respondents that till at least the public notice dated February 28, 1979, there was any restriction limited to quantity. The rejection of the claim of the petitioners for exemption from duty, under the circumstances, on the technical point of effective endorsement is unjustified.

15. His contention that the licensing authority had absolute discretion to endorse the quantity and/or value is without any merit. As indicated above, the guidelines are indicated in the various notifications issued under Section 25. The notification of June 19, 1978 and the earlier notifications had a nexus with the Import Policy of the particular items. The value and/or quantity has, therefore, to be endorsed in accordance with the imports permitted under the Import Policy so far as the items covered by the notifications are concerned. The object of the notification itself would be frustrated if it is assumed that the licensing authority has the discretion to act arbitrarily by endorsing any value or quantity as he is pleased. Such an arbitrary exercise of powers is not, in my view, contemplated by the notifications of July 1977 and June 19, 1978, in question. The notification under Section 25 confers a statutory right on the importer to claim exemption from duty if all the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The notification under Section 25 is not merely a policy statement and the petitioners who have imported the goods before February 28, 1979, in any case, will be entitled to claim exemption from payment of duty, because there was no quantity restriction on the import then, but was only limited to value. The quantity restriction as well as the further reduced value restriction came, for the first time thereafter by the Public Notice of February 28, 1979. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to claim the exemption from payment of duty on the basis of the value endorsement made by the licensing authority. In any case the quantity restrictions mentioned in the public notice of February 28, 1979 could not apply to imports made before the said date. To such imports the relevant and material endorsement was in respect of the value of the goods, because the import replenishment itself was restricted to 50% of the value of goods exported. At the most, to meet the technical requirement regarding the endorsement contained in the notification, the licensing authority had just to endorse the actual quantity which has been imported by the petitioners in this case. In the circumstances, the absence of the endorsement in respect of the quantity cannot be a ground for refusing the petitioners' claim for exemption from the payment of duty in respect of the imported goods in question.

16. Coming to the public notice of February 28, 1979, it is clear that it clear beings about some change in the import policy for the year 1978-79. The subject mentioned in the public notice is 'Import Policy, 1978-79'. Paragraph 2 of the public notice provides for certain amendment in the new Import Policy for 1978-79, but that is in respect of the items at Serial Nos. K. 11(iii), K. 13(ii), K. 13(iii), K. 13(iv) and S. No. 0.6, and there is no charge so far as the exported items referred to in Sr. No. K. 11(ii). Further paragraph 3 provides that in order to enable the eligible exporters to get the benefit of the notification dated June 19, 1978, it has been decided to grant import replenishment licences against the exports of products referred to in the said notification, made on or after 1-4-1978, to enable imports of Nylon Filament Yarn/Polyester Filament Yarn to the extent of 1.2 kgs. against 1 kg. of the respective yarn certified to have been used in the product exported at 32% of the f.o.b. value of the respective exports, both the value and the quantity being made the limiting factor. Assuming that this change of policy contained in paragraph 3 of the public notice is intended to affect the import replenishment licences against the export of items at Sr. No. K. 11(ii), the policy contained therein cannot apply retrospectively. In terms, it appears to be of prospective application to cases where import replenishment licences are asked for after the date of the public notification, although such licences may be against the export of products made on or after 1-4-1978. Such a change of policy cannot apply retrospectively to the petitioners' case where not only the exports have already taken place but on the basis of the replenishment licences issued the imports have also taken place and an endorsement under the notification of June 19, 1978 has been asked for and even been made by the licensing authority prior to the date of the public notice. If the licensing authorities were to refuse to make an endorsement or were to make an incorrect endorsement, still that would not make any difference and that would not be a valid ground for applying the policy laid down in the public notice in respect of the imports prior to February 28, 1979. In this case, after the petition was filed the licensing authority substituted the earlier endorsement of value by a fresh endorsement based on the applicability of the public notice of February 28, 1979. This endorsement is per se illegal and the licensing authorities are bound in law to make the endorsement of the value based on 50% of the f.o.b. value of the exported goods without limiting the quantity in any manner. Moreover, as held by me above, the endorsement of value originally made was sufficient compliance in the eyes of law with the notification dated June 19, 1978 so as to enable the petitioners to claim full exemption from excise duty in respect of the goods imported.

17. Mr. Andhyarujina relied on to decision of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that the public notice dated February 28, 1979 cannot have the retrospective operation. In Messrs Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay & Anr., : AIR1971SC704 , the Supreme Court held that, a public notification has no retrospective operation, and therefore, the condition of 'prime quality' could not be applied to the sheets imported under the licences issued before the date of the issue of the notification. As held by me above, in the present case, the policy in the public notice of February 28, 1979, is clearly prospective. There is nothing to indicate that it would apply to the case of an import already made and endorsement already validly made on the licences by the licensing authorities.

18. On a fair reading of the public notice dated February 28, 1979 it is noticed that the intention was to amend entries at Serial Numbers K. 11(iii), K. 13(ii), K. 13(iv) in Appendix 17 of the Import Policy for the year 1978-79. Even under the policy prior to the amendment by the public notice, permissible import replenishments for Items falling under the said entries were limited both to value and quantity. It appears that the public notice was intended to affect some of the items in respect of which even before the public notice, the import replenishment was limited to both value and quantity and not only to value as in the case of Item K. 11(ii) with which we are concerned. I, therefore, reject the contention of the respondents that the public notice of February 28, 1979 affects the petitioners' right to claim exemption from duty in respect of the import replenishments to which they are entitled under Entry K. 11(ii), in respect of the exports under the registered contracts dated March 23, 1978 and March 29, 1978. They would be entitled to full exemption from payment of duty limited to the 50% of the f.o.b. value of the exported goods.

19. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, it must be held that the respondents 3 and 4 were not justified in making an endorsement on the basis of public notice of February 28, 1979 nor were they justified in replacing the original endorsement of the 50% value, Respondent No. 2 was not justified in ignoring the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the endorsement did not make reference to the quantity.

20. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to consider the question regarding the application or otherwise of the rule of 'promissory estoppel' in this case.

21. The petition succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order directing respondents 3 and 4 from cancelling the new endorsement made by them and restoring the original endorsement regarding the value limited to 50% and further directing respondent No. 2 to act on the said endorsement or granting the claim of the exemption from duty under Notification of June 19, 1978.

22. Rule absolute as above. Respondents to pay costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //