JUDGMENT
Kapadia, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of request for de-registration made by the petitioners to the Assistant Collector of Customs vide Order dated June 30, 1987 the present Writ Petition has been filed.
2. Facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows :
3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company set up with the object of setting up special Plant for welded steep tubes in Nurpur, Gujarat which is a backward area. On April 1, 1985 the Central Government announced Import Policy for April 1985 to March 1988. Under Para 288 of the Hand Book concessional duty was payable on goods, components and raw material for initially setting up of a Project under Tariff Heading 84.66. On April 19, 1985 respondent No. 1 issued Notification No. 132 of 1985 exempting goods imported for Project Imports from Customs duty in excess of twenty per cent (ad valorem). Subsequently respondent No. 1 issued Notification No. 155 of 1988 exempting Project Imports from auxiliary duty more than twenty five per cent as per Notification dated 24th April, 1985. On July 12, 1985 petitioner obtained Import License for two years. Petitioners also registered the contract for Import under Import Regulations, 1986. However, on January 1, 1987 the Central Government increased the rate of duty of Project Imports. Petitioner thereafter got the contract registered almost after five months on 17th June, 1987. The said contract was registered on 17th June, 1987. On 18th June, 1987, petitioner in fact filed its Bill of Entry for home consumption in respect of the imported goods and the respondents carried out the assessment on June 22, 1987. Thereafter, on 29th June, 1987, petitioners wrote letter to the third respondent for de-registration which, as stated hereinabove, came to be rejected by the impugned Order and in the circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Mr. Bharucha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in the present case, the petitioners were entitled to seek de-registration, particularly in view of Notification issued by the Government on 1st January, 1987, increasing the rate of duty of Project Imports, because it was not a financially sound proposition for the petitioners and under such circumstances, the petitioners are always entitled to apply and seek de-registration of the contract. Mr. Bharucha placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Newsprint Papers Limited v. Madras Customs & Ors. – [1988 (33) E.L.T. 22].
5. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may be mentioned that petitioners’ contract came to be registered on 17th June, 1987. In fact, we are informed, that the petitioners applied for registration, sometime in May 1987 knowing [fully] well that the Government had, in January 1987, already increased the rate of Project Imports. Further, on 18th January, 1987, the petitioners filed their Bill of Entry for home consumption and in fact, the assessment was also done on 22nd June, 1987. It is only thereafter that on 29th June, 1987 the petitioners applied for de-registration. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to grant of request for de-registration. We are confining our judgment strictly to the facts of the present case, as enumerated hereinabove. The judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Newsprint (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case because as stated hereinabove, in this case, the petitioners applied for registration of the contract in May 1987 i.e., almost five months after the Government increased rate of duty of Project Imports on January 1, 1987 and they applied for de-registration after assessment was carried out on their Bills of Entry for home consumption on 22nd June, 1987. The Judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu Newsprint referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been subsequently over-ruled by the decision of the Division Bench of the same court in the case of Appraiser Madras Customs v. Tamil Nadu Newsprint [reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 272]. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, Writ fails. Rule is discharged. At the time of admission of the Writ Petition, petitioners have given a Bank Guarantee. Mr. Bharucha, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that within four weeks from today, the differential duty will be paid by the petitioners to the Customs. On such payment of differential duty, the Bank Guarantee given by the petitioners at the time of admission shall stand discharged. In case the payment is not made, the respondents would be entitled to enforce the Bank Guarantee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.