DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this petition have prayed that they be permitted to clear the goods on payment of Customs duty at the- rate of 60% plus 20% auxiliary duty; ( 2 ) THE petitioners entered into an agreement with Patel Holdings Private Limited, Singapore, whereby the petitioner-company agreed to purchase from the foreign supplier 14,000 M. T. of palm stearin. The petitioners had received an intimation on 5th September, 1981 that the said foreign supplier has shipped 3478. 9871 M. T. of palm stearin, and the same is destined for the port of Kandla in the State of Gujarat on or about 14th September, 1981. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, before the goods arrived in India on 12. 9. 81, the petitioners filed writ petition before this court, with the prayer that the petitioners goods be clear on 60% duty plus auxiliary duty, instead of 125% duty plus auxiliary duty. On 16. 9. 1981, the Division Bench of this court passed the following order:- 16. 9. 81 "present; Mr. Soli J. Sorabji and Mr. A. J. Rana, Senior Advocates, with Mr. J. Lal for the petitioners C. W. 2127/81 Rule D. B. C. M. 4027/81 5 Notice for October 23,1981. In the meanwhile, interim relief in terms of prayers a and b vis-a-vis 3478. 9871 metric tons of palm Stearin said to have arrived at Kandla Port by the vessel "bowcon N0. 5". With regard to consignments said to have been shipped by the vessels "rich START", "j. N. H- 1" and "idan DARI" or "cochise" mentioned as items (ii), (iii) and (iv) and paras a and b of the application, liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application as and when the said consignments reach the port. The petitioners should also give a bond for the disputed duty before clearance. Dasti. Sd/-CHIEF JUSTICE September 16, 1981 Sd/-S. S. CHADHA, J" ( 4 ) IMMEDIATELY after the consignment arrived at the port, a Civil Misc. Petition was filed in the said writ petition and this court on l6th October, 1981, passed the following order:- "16. 10. 81 Present: Mr. Soli J. Sorabji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. J. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M. Chandrasekharan for the respondent. C. M. 4343/81, C. M. 4344/81, C. M. 4379/81 Notice. Mr. Chandrasekharan accepts notice. Reply within two weeks. 10. 81 Present: Mr. Soli J. Sorabji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. J. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M. Chandrasekharan for the respondent. C. M. 4343/81, C. M. 4344/81, C. M. 4379/81 Notice. Mr. Chandrasekharan accepts notice. Reply within two weeks. In the meanwhile, as far as consignment which arrived at Port in vessel "bowcon N0. 5", our order is as we had directed in C. M. 4027/81 by our order dated l6th September, 1981. We further order that consignments comprising of 5397. 766 metric tonnes and 593. 027 metric tonnes of palm stearin said to have arrived in Port on the vessels "daqing 218" and "rich STAR" respectively will be cleared on the same terms and conditions as for consignment which arrived in Port in Vessel "bowcon N0. 5. "the case be listed for 12th November, 1981. Sd/-CHIEF JUSTICE Dtl6. 10. 81 Sd/- S. S. CHADHA,j. ( 5 ) THE petitioners consequently cleared the goods in pursuance of the orders and directions of this court on payment of 60 per cent duty plus auxiliary duty instead of 125% duty plus auxiliary duty. ( 6 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that on 24. 9. 1981, a Notification was issued by the Government of India, and according to the said notification, from the date of issuance of the notification, duty on all sorts of palm stearin has been levied on 125%. The petitioners consignment was admittedly cleared sometimes in October, 1981 much after the Notification came into force. The notification is reproduced hereinunder. ANNEXURE-J "to BE PUBLISHED IN PART II, SECTION 3 SUB- SECTION (i) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY DATED THE 24th SEPTEMBER, 1981/2 ASVINA, 1903 (SAKA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NEW DELHI, THE 24th SEPTEMBER, 1981 2 ASVINA, 1903 (SAKA) NOTIFICATION N0. 213 - CUSTOMS GSR NO. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No-177-Customs, dated the 26th July, 1981, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods specified in column. (2) of the Table hereto annexed and falling within Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule as is in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table. Provided that nothing contained in this Notification shall affect any exemption, granted under any other notification of the Government of India for the time being in force, from the duty of customs specified in the said First Schedule in respect of any of the goods referred to in this notification. Note: This notification has the effect of making the intention clearer with regard to levy of customs duty on vegetable oils and allied products covered by Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. " ( 7 ) MR. G. L. Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents by the said notification could not increase the duty. He further submitted that since there is no specified description of the goods in the Notification, therefore, the petitioners are under no obligation to pay the duty at the rate of 125% ad valorem. ( 8 ) MR. Madan Lokur, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the respondents were justified in increasing the rate of duty in the larger public interest and after the Notification came into force on 24th September, 1981, the petitioners are under obligation to pay the duty at the rate of 125%. It may be pertinent to mention that the goods were admittedly cleared after the Notification came into force. ( 9 ) MR. Rawal also submitted that goods entered the territorial waters of India on 14. 7. 1981 and they are under an obligation to pay duty which is leviable on that date when the goods entered the territorial waters. ( 10 ) MR. Madan Lokur, learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that this controversy stands fully concluded by a Division Bench Judgment of this court, Jain Shudh Vanaspati Limited Vs. Union of India and another, 1983 (2) I. L. R. Delhi, 327. The ratio of the said judgment is the date when the ship enters territorial waters of India is not important for fiscal purposes. Union of India and another, 1983 (2) I. L. R. Delhi, 327. The ratio of the said judgment is the date when the ship enters territorial waters of India is not important for fiscal purposes. According to the said judgment, duty has to be calculated when the goods are cleared. ( 11 ) MR. Rawal also referred to letter dated 27th July, 1981 Annexure-I to the writ petition, issued from the Under Secretary to the Government of India. ( 12 ) MR. Madan Lokur, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that this Annexure-I has no relevance as far as adjudication of the controversy in issue is concerned and it can be conveniently ignored. In view of the submissions of Mr. Lokur, we do not propose to deal with the said letter (Annexure-I ). ( 13 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Rawal and they are rejected. We are clearly of the opinion that the petitioners are under an obligation to pay the duty as incorporated in the Notification after the same came into force i. e. on 24th September, 1981. The said Notification specifically mentions that on all sorts of palm stearin, the duty would be 125 per cent ad valorem. ( 14 ) THE interim orders which the petitioners have obtained have adversely affected the interest of the respondent-Union of India. In order to do complete justice in the matter, in the larger public interest, the petitioners ought not to be permitted to make profit at the cost of public revenue. According to the well- known principles of equity, justice and fair play, the petitioners must restore the advantage they had over the respondents-Union of India because of the stay they enjoyed, and consequently deprived the respondent-Union of India of their legitimate and lawful revenue during the period when stay operated against them. As has been laid down in a recent judgment. M/s Parekh Prints and others V. Union of India and others, 1991 (3) Delhi Lawyer 99 (DB), that in a commercial transaction, the bank rate is 17-1/2 per cent per annum. Accordingly, the respondents should also be entitled to interest at the rate of 17-1/2% per annum from the date duty became payable till payment. M/s Parekh Prints and others V. Union of India and others, 1991 (3) Delhi Lawyer 99 (DB), that in a commercial transaction, the bank rate is 17-1/2 per cent per annum. Accordingly, the respondents should also be entitled to interest at the rate of 17-1/2% per annum from the date duty became payable till payment. ( 15 ) THE writ petition filed by the petitioners being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 2,000. 00.