CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others vs Messrs FLYING BOARD & PAPER
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the recovery of regulatory duty on goods partially or totally exempted from customs duty, and whether such goods were chargeable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. During the proceedings, civil miscellaneous applications were addressed regarding interim arrangements for clearing goods and the refund of regulatory duty previously recovered from the respondents. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the legal questions raised and disposed of the interim applications with specific directions. The respondents were directed to deliver post-dated bank-endorsed cheques and furnish an indemnity bond while clearing goods pending the appeal. Furthermore, the Court directed the applicants to approach the Department for the refund of the disputed regulatory duty in accordance with the law and the undertaking previously given by the Department in court.
- Were the petitioners entitled to recover regulatory duty on goods partially or totally exempted from customs duty?
- Were goods of the respondents not chargeable to regulatory duty based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel?
ORDER
1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, whether the petitioners were entitled to recover regulatory duty on the goods partially or totally exempted from customs duty and as to whether goods of the respondents were not chargeable as such on the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
2. ' C.M. No,1124-L/1996:- While clearing the goods, the respondents shall deliver post-dated cheques to the petitioners equivalent to the amount of regulatory duty in dispute duly endorsed by the bank and also furnish Indemnity Bond to the satisfaction of Assistant Collector (Bonds) concerned as per the arrangement made during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, till the disposal of the appeal.
3. ' C.M. No,1146-L/1996:- The learned counsel for the applicants states that regulatory duty in question having been recovered through coercion from the applicants, the action was challenged in the proceedings before the learned High Court where undertaking was given by the petitioners that in case the respondents' Writ Petition is accepted the regulatory duty recovered would be refunded to the petitioners/applicants with interest. Now that Writ Petition has been accepted the Department failed to honour the commitment for refund of the amount. Learned counsel appearing for the department categorically stated that to his knowledge so far no such request has been made for the amount and if any such request is made. The said amount would be refunded in accordance with law and the undertaking given in Court. Accordingly, the applicants are directed to approach the Department for the needful.
4. ' Disposed of accordingly.