P. K. BAHRI ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash order dated April 12, 1979, made by the respondent under S. 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that petitioner No. 1 is eligible export house and holds an eligibility certificate for products of the following groups : (A) Engineering goods; (b) Chemicals and allied products; and (c) Fish and fish products. Under the scheme of promotion of exports and for granting eligibility certificates of a particular product group to an eligible export house, the petitioners claimed that they are entitled to claim transfer of licences issued in favour of registered exporters in their own name and substitute the item of import as per column IV in S. II of Vol. II of Import Trade Control Policy of a particular product group of which the export house has eligibility certificate as per para 12 (1)S. I Part C of Red Book Vol. II pages 22-23 of Import Trade Control Policy for the year 1973-74. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in the year 1974 had imported 8 consignments of synthetic resin polyester resin chips (semi dull) from Japan. These imports were effected under bills of entry dated March 11, 1974 to Oct. 31, 1974, of which details are given in para 3 of the petition. The licences in respect of these import items had been issued in favour of Actual Users (Registered Exporters) and they have been transferred in the name of petitioners under sub-cl. 5 (3) (i) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, served show cause notices in respect of these eight consignments under S. 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, objecting to the import of these products on the basis of the aforesaid licences on the ground that those licences did not cover the imported products. The goods were confiscated under S. 11l (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with S. 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, subject to redemption on payment of fine. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, also imposed on the petitioners penalties under S. 112 of the Customs Act, the details of which are furnished in para 5 of the petition. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, also imposed on the petitioners penalties under S. 112 of the Customs Act, the details of which are furnished in para 5 of the petition. The appeals were filed by the petitioners before the Central Board of Excise and Customs but those appeals came to be rejected. The petitioners then filed revision petitions to the Government of India under S. 131 of the Customs Act, 1962. The revision petitions were only partly allowed inasmuch as redemption fine was reduced to about 50% and penalties imposed were set aside. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, public notice dated Sept. 18, 1974 (Ann.-IX) had been issued prohibiting the import of the products of the nature subject-matter of this writ as they were not to be covered by the expression synthetic resin and also referred to public notice of the same date in that respect and reading of both the said notices made it clear that the Customs authorities were directed not to allow in future such imports but in respect of the imports effected before that date or the orders placed before that date the Customs authorities were required to allow the said imports. According to the Customs authorities, the aforesaid licences which have been got transferred in the name of the petitioners from the registered importers the product synthetic resin could be imported which could be used for production of filter and filter elements. On the import licences it is mentioned that these imports have been allowed against Export Product Group No. A-136. 24 which pertains to the product filter and filter elements. These licences for importing the synthetic resin had been granted to the said registered importers in order to replenish their raw material which was to be used for their products filter and filter elements and those licences could not be used for importing any raw material which had no use for the said export product of filter and filter elements. It is not disputed that the goods imported by the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid licences were on test found to be polyester synthetic resin with similar amount of dulling agent in the form of chips of textile grade. Hence, according to the Customs authorities, the goods imported were not covered by the aforesaid licences and thus were liable to be confiscated. Hence, according to the Customs authorities, the goods imported were not covered by the aforesaid licences and thus were liable to be confiscated. It is pertinent to mention that no reasons were given by the Collector of Customs in his order as to why these products could not be allowed to be imported on the basis of the aforesaid public notice. The order of the Board rejecting the appeals has not been placed on the record. The re visional authority while agreeing with the findings of the lower authorities that the products imported by the petitioners were not covered by the licences issued, however, did take into consideration the fact that there has been a practice being followed by the Customs authorities in allowing the products of the type in question under the import licences granted for import of synthetic resin without correlating it with the export product mentioned in the licences and the revisional authority went on to grant same relief in the redemption fine and the penalties. The revisional authority did not examine the implications of the said public notices of 1974 by which the directions had been given to the Customs authorities to clear such products as before if orders had been placed for import of such products on the basis of such like import licences before the issuance of this public notice. A perusal of the order of the Collector and also of the revisional authority shows that much stress has been laid before the said authorities that the words "synthetic resin" would cover the goods in question and once the export house like the petitioners had got the licence transferred in their names the export houses are not bound to import the goods which can be used only for the product mentioned in the said licences but they could be used for any product of the group for which the export house is registered. Counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition has not pressed this particular argument. He has only confined his arguments to the effect of the said two public notices and has urged that as the goods imported by the petitioners were of the period prior to issuance of the said public notices, so they should have been cleared by the Customs authorities without imposing any redemption fine or penalties. He has only confined his arguments to the effect of the said two public notices and has urged that as the goods imported by the petitioners were of the period prior to issuance of the said public notices, so they should have been cleared by the Customs authorities without imposing any redemption fine or penalties. He has relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein the aforesaid circulars have been explained and it has been laid down that the goods which have been imported on the basis of such like licences prior to issuance of the aforesaid public notices are to be cleared by the Customs authorities without imposing any redemption fine or penalties. A copy of the said judgment of the Bombay High Court is Ann. XII. In the said case Gujarat State Export Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1984 ECR 886 the eligible export, house had imported 64 boxes (pallets) containing synthetic resin (polyester chips) on the basis of the licences transferred to the said export house under the Import Policy for the year 1973-74. The goods were forfeited on theground that the licences did not cover the said goods. In that case also it was pleaded by the Collector of Customs that imported goods are of textile grade and are not meant to be used for Export Product Group A- 136. 24 which covers filter and filter elements. So, the Collector had allowed the goods to be redeemed on the payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The questions, which have been raised in this writ were also raised before the Bombay High Court with regard to the said policy of the Government which permitted the said products to be imported earlier, the Bombay High Court found that the Customs authorities had earlier consistently followed the practice to release such goods against similar licences to the said export house. It was held that the goods could not be confiscated. I will now refer to the public notices which, in my opinion, clinch the issue in this case. The judgment of the Bombay High Court has not been challenged by filing any appeal in the Supreme Court. So, it will show that the Union of India has accepted the verdict given in that particular judgment. The public notice dated Sept. 18, 1974. (Ann. . The judgment of the Bombay High Court has not been challenged by filing any appeal in the Supreme Court. So, it will show that the Union of India has accepted the verdict given in that particular judgment. The public notice dated Sept. 18, 1974. (Ann. . IX) reads as follows : "under the Import Policy in force "synthetic resins" is one of the licensable items. This item is required as raw materials in Paints, Adhesives, Plastic Goods and Surface Coating Industries. It is hereby clarified that import licences issued for this item are not valid for the Import of Polyamide resins. Polyester resins and Polyester Chips of textile grade which are required in the manufacture of nylone fibre/filament and Polyester Fiber/filament. " ( 5 ) THE other circular issued by the Government of India of the same date (copy Ann. X) has been sent to all Collector of Customs of which subject is the same as in the public notice and it was mentioned that some parties, having import licences for synthetic resins, have been importing polyamide resins, polyester resins or polyester chips against such licences and strictly speaking it may not have been possible for the Customs to treat such imports as unauthorised and, therefore, a public notice has been issued of the same date clarifying that the import licences issued for synthetic resins are not valid for the import of polyamide resins, polyester resins and polyester chips of textile grade and so, it was directed that the provisions of this public notice will not affect imports already made, or shipments already effected or irrevocable Letters of Credit already opened and accepted by the Indian Banks before the date of issue of the public notice. So, it is clear from this public notice and the circular that the imports made by the petitioners could not have been confiscated because it was clarified that it is only in future that such products would not be allowed to be imported for the licences issued for importing synthetic resins. The respondents could not, in my opinion, take the plea that they were not bound by the, said circular and the public notice because it is not shown that at any time this circular was withdrawn or any fresh circular had been issued clarifying the matter. ( 6 ) I may mention that no counter has been filed in opposing the writ. ( 6 ) I may mention that no counter has been filed in opposing the writ. However, counsel for the respondents has made reference to I. N. Saksena v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1264 , in support of his contention that the said circular issued by the Government of India to Collectors of Customs has no binding legal force. Facts, in brief, of this case are that a memorandum had been issued to all Collectors and different Departments regarding the decision of the Government for raising the age of compulsory retirement from 55 years to 58 years but the said memorandum was not gazetted but it was mentioned in the memorandum itself that necessary amendments to Fundamental Rule 56 shall be made in due course. Subsequently Fundamental Rule 56 was amended without incorporating the clause and empowering the Government to retire the Government servants from service above the age of 55 years by giving them three months notice. It was held that the memorandum amounted only to an executive instruction of the Government and not a rule within the meaning of Art. 309 of the Constitution. It was held that the Government servant could be retired only after following the amended Fundamental Rule 56 and not on the basis of mere memorandum. The case is totally distinguishable because after issuance of the memorandum, the Fundamental Rule 56 was amended and obviously the rights flowing from amended Fundamental Rule 56 were to be given effect to and not anything said in the memorandum. Such is not the case here. The public notice and the circular in question were never modified or changed at any time, so they have to be considered binding on the parties. It could not be left to the discretion of the different Collectors of Customs either to follow the said circular or not to follow the said circular. The said discretion if had been given it would have been completely arbitrary. In case they had exercised discretion in favour of one party and not in favour of the similarly placed other, such act of the Collector of Customs could have been struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred to M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 704 . ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred to M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, AIR 1971 SC 704 . One of the points which arose for decision in this case was as to whether a particular public notice could operate retrospectively or is to be deemed to come into operation prospectively? On seeing the wordings of the particular public notice, the Supreme Court held that it did not have any retrospective operation. In the present case, the wordings of the public notice and the circular as detailed out above make it clear that the same were to apply prospectively and not retrospectively. So, this writ petition has to succeed on short ground that the goods in question, which have been imported prior to issuance of the aforesaid public notice, could not be confiscated as such goods have been allowed to be imported on the basis of such like licences earlier and even the Government of India had issued directions to all the Collectorsof Customs for clearing such imported goods if the orders have been placed for importing those goods before the issuance of the aforesaid public notice. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that such goods had been transported even prior to issuance of the said public notice and no counter has been filed challenging this particular fact. So, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have also by amended writ petition prayed that the respondents be also directed to issue a detention certificate so that the petitioners may get waiver of demurrage charges from the Port Trust Authority. The detention certificate is to be issued if the goods are detained by the Customs House for bona fide operation of import control formalities without any default on the part of the importers. There are other conditions on the basis of which the detention certificate could be issued. Counsel for the respondents has referred to Gaurisons v. International Airport Authority of India (1988) 34elt 550. In this judgment this Court has held that the International Airport Authority of India is to waive the demurrage charges on the basis of its own rules and regulations. Counsel for the respondents has referred to Gaurisons v. International Airport Authority of India (1988) 34elt 550. In this judgment this Court has held that the International Airport Authority of India is to waive the demurrage charges on the basis of its own rules and regulations. However, it was also held in this judgment that if the detention certificate is issued by the Customs authorities on the ground that the goods have been detained due to import licence formalities then demurrage charges could be waived by the International Airport Authority. Nothing said in this judgment is of any help to the respondents. Here, the goods have been wrongly confiscated and not released to the petitioners on account of import licence formalities. Hence, the petitioners were not to be blamed for the same and the respondents are bound to issue detention certificate to the petitioners. It was not incumbent on the petitioners to have impleaded the Bombay Port Authorities in this writ petition. After necessary detention certificate is issued in favour of the petitioners by the respondents, it is for the petitioners to seek waiving of demurrage charges by the concerned authority. ( 9 ) HENCE, in view of the above discussion, I allow the writ petition, make the rule absolute and quash the impugned orders and direct the respondents to issue detention certificate to the petitioners, as prayed by the petitioners. The respondents shall pay costs to the petitioners which I quantify at Rs. 1,000. 00.