Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the importer’s appeals against denial of customs-duty exemption for acetic anhydride imported under an existing advance licence. The clarificatory notification preserved exemption subject to its conditions, whose fulfilment was not disputed. Import after the intervening withdrawal notification did not justify different treatment of consignments under the same licence. The authorities could not defend the denial by professing ignorance of their own notification or relying on the importer’s failure to produce it.
Issues
- Whether exemption could be denied for the disputed consignments despite the clarificatory notification and the undisputed coverage of the advance licence.
Held
- All consignments were imported under the same advance licence issued before 19 May 1992. Their differing arrival dates around the withdrawal notification were immaterial in light of the clarificatory notification dated 18 March 1994, and the respondents did not allege non-compliance with its conditions. (¶ 8)
- The High Court erred in failing to follow its decision in the similar Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals matter and in accepting the authorities’ lack of awareness of their own notification. The State has a duty to assist the court and act fairly, and cannot shelter behind abstract rules of burden of proof in these circumstances. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside.