ORDER 1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together having regard to the common issues that arise for consideration. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. The factual background is as follows: The petitioners are either a 'Developer, a 'Co-Developer', an 'Entrepreneur', or an 'existing Unit', as defined under the sub-clauses of Section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SEZ Act', for brevity). The SEZ Act, inter alia,provides for the establishment, development and management of Special Economic Zones for the promotion of exports. While notifying an area as a SEZ, the Central Government is guided by the objects enumerated under Section 5 of the SEZ Act, viz., generation of additional economic activity, promotion of exports of goods and services, promotion of investment from domestic and foreign sources, creation of employment opportunities, development of infrastructure facilities and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India including its security and friendly relations with foreign countries. Section 26 of the SEZ Act provides for duty exemptions, drawbacks and concessions to every 'developer', entrepreneur', 'co-developer' and an 'unit', as defined under the SEZ Act. There is exemption from duty of customs on goods imported into or services provided in a SEZ to carry on the authorised operations and exemptions from customs duty on goods exported from or services provided from a SEZ. Exemption from duty of central excise under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 1944 Act' for brevity) or the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CET Act' for brevity), on goods brought from the 'Domestic Tariff Area' (hereinafter referred to as 'the DTA' for brevity), as defined under the Act, to an SEZ. These exemptions are claimed as per Rule 22 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'SEZ Rules' for brevity). By virtue of the Finance Act, 2008, various items were included in the Second Schedule-Export Tariff, to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including pig-iron, ferrous products, iron and steel products of various types, so as to introduce tariff rates of duty at 20% ad valoremon all iron and steel items. Simultaneously, on 10-5-2008, the Central Government issued an exemption notification prescribing the effective rates of duty on sixteen items added to the Export Tariff Schedule. Simultaneously, on 10-5-2008, the Central Government issued an exemption notification prescribing the effective rates of duty on sixteen items added to the Export Tariff Schedule. Consequently, all Development Commissioners were made aware that "export duty" had been levied on export of steel products and therefore they were to allow supply of steel products to SEZs on submission of a bond and a bank guarantee in case the duty would be finally payable. The notification dated 10-5-2008 was amended by another notification dated 13-6-2008, reducing the rates of exemption and thereby increasing the effective rate of duty. The effect of the customs notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been construed as enabling the levy of customs duty on transactions treated as exports. In other words, a domestic manufacturer or supplier of the subject items, is treated as an "exporter" and the purchaser within the SEZ, such as the petitioners, as "importers". The petitioners contend that the impugned action has the unnatural effect of levying duty of customs on goods which are neither physically moving out of the territory of India by treating them as "export" of goods outside India nor physically moving into India from outside India as "import" of goods. It is also contended that yet another effect of the action of the respondents is that goods manufactured in India, which are subject to levy under the Central Excise Tariff Act, are being treated as goods exported outside India and imported into India for levy of customs duty. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that instructions issued by the Department of Commerce construing the notifications dated 10-5-2008 and 13-6-2008, issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, as enabling its officers to exact or levy customs duty, acting as an authority under the SEZ Act, is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The said action defeats the provisions of Section 26 of the SEZ Act and the SEZ Rules thereunder, in particular Rule 22 thereof. It is contended that the instructions issued are contrary to the meaning and legal import of the definition of expressions used and postulated in the Customs Act, 1962, which are to be reconciled and applied to the provisions of the SEZ Act in terms of Section 2(zd) of the latter Act. It is contended that the instructions issued are contrary to the meaning and legal import of the definition of expressions used and postulated in the Customs Act, 1962, which are to be reconciled and applied to the provisions of the SEZ Act in terms of Section 2(zd) of the latter Act. As for instance "India" would have to be understood according to the provisions of the Customs Act read with Article 1 of the Constitution of India and it leads to an incongruity to equate the SEZ units, entrepreneurs or developers as being situate in a foreign territory so as to tax items received by them from indigenous manufacturers in India as import of goods and conversely tax supply of goods made by local manufacturers or suppliers in India as export of goods. It is contended that the petitioners are neither importers nor exporters under either the SEZ Act or the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the notified items and hence cannot be called upon to pay export duty thereof. It is stated that the incongruity which is created is evident from the circumstance that the Ministry of Finance itself had sought for clarification from the Ministry of Legal Affairs as reported in the newspapers and published in the Income Tax Reports dated 28-7-2008. It is therefore prayed that by the impugned directions to exact purported export duty on materials named in the said communication from the petitioners, which if not prevented by this Court, would be violative of the Constitutional mandate under Article 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is emphasized by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the impugned directions, an artificial and fictional theory is sought to be created in relation to the meaning of the expressions "India", "import" and "export", which are illegal and levies sought to be exacted are without authority of law. Attention is drawn to Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GC Act' for brevity), to contend that the SEZ units fall within the territory of India and cannot by any degree of inference denote a foreign territory so as to levy export duty on a supply to a SEZ unit by a domestic manufacturing unit in India or to levy import duty on bringing into the SEZ unit goods from indigenous manufacturing units in India. Thus, the impugned directions therefore are contrary to the established principles of taxing statutes. The same is also contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in: Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, JT (2008) 5 SC 256 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the territorial jurisdiction of India under the Customs Law would extend to the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones and that the principles of international law including United Nation Conventions on the Law of Sea 1982, would be applicable while interpreting fiscal laws such as the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, the impugned instructions run contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Sun Industries, JT (1988) 2 SC 131 wherein it is held that in order to constitute an export, goods should be taken out to a place outside India. The impugned instructions of the first respondent are therefore contrary to the settled principles. It is contended that in terms of Section 26 of the SEZ Act, the petitioners are carrying on activities as duly approved under the SEZ Act. By virtue of the impugned instructions, if implemented, would have the effect of depriving the petitioners of the benefits of duty exemption guaranteed to them by law and would result in converting a privilege into a disadvantage. The petitioners would therefore contend that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel would be applicable in the circumstances. It is pointed out that in respect of several compliances under various laws, the SEZ is considered as being an integral part of India as for instance, there is no exemption from stamp duty or relaxation under any Labour Laws. There is also no exemption from any provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 and so on. That being so, the SEZ unit being treated as being outside India for levy of export duty alone by the first respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. There is also no exemption from any provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 and so on. That being so, the SEZ unit being treated as being outside India for levy of export duty alone by the first respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Gujarat High Court has in the case of Essar Steel Limited v. Union of India 2010 (249) E.L.T. 3 (Guj.), addressed the very same issues and has held that the action of the respondents in levying export duty on goods supplied from the domestic tariff area to the SEZ is not justified and would place strong reliance on the said judgment would submit that the principles laid down therein would apply on all fours to the present case on hand and would submit that the petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the challenge in the above petitions is in relation to a policy decision and therefore would not be maintainable in law and by way of relating the background would submit that the Special Economic Zones Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the SEZ Scheme' for brevity) was introduced in the Foreign Trade Policy (hereinafter referred to as 'the FTP' for brevity) of the year 2001 issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, (hereinafter referred to as 'the FTDR Act' for brevity) by the department of Commerce, Government of India and all the existing Export Processing Zones (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPZs' for brevity) operating till then under the EPZ scheme of the FTP were re-designated as SEZs. Under the EPZ Scheme, the EPZ was notified as bonded premises under the Customs Act, 1962 and all procurement of goods imported as well as indigenous were exempted from customs and central excise duties by a Notification issued under the Customs Act and the CE Act. Under these EPZ Schemes, units were set up with export obligation and they were subjected to conditions in the scheme and notifications issued to clear goods to the domestic market on payment of appropriate duty. With the re-designation of the scheme as SEZ in the year 2001, the concept was revised to deem the SEZs as areas where the central excise tariffs would not apply. With the re-designation of the scheme as SEZ in the year 2001, the concept was revised to deem the SEZs as areas where the central excise tariffs would not apply. Therefore in May, 2004, the Customs Act, 1962, was amended to incorporate Chapter XA and allowed all goods imported into SEZ to be zero rated for customs and for all supplies from Domestic Tariff Area to be considered at par with fiscal imports out of the country and thus exempt from levy of central excise duty as well as being eligible for drawback and other export benefits. All documents and procedures under the Customs Act and the CE Act were being followed for bringing the goods into the SEZ as well as for removal, whether for export or for sale in the domestic tariff area. With the passing of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, which has come into force on 10-2-2006 along with Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, Chapter 7 of the FTP and Chapter XA of the Customs Act were rendered redundant. It is stated that the SEZ Act prescribes exemptions from customs, central excise and certain other duties under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. It also created a category of persons called "developer" who took over the responsibility for investing in and providing facilities in a SEZ that were used by the exporting units to be set up in the SEZ, both the developer and the exporting units are eligible for the exemptions. The SEZs are notified by the department of Commerce and there is compound wall to enclose the processing area of the SEZ. The SEZs are under the administrative control of a Development Commissioner, who is an officer of the Central Government. Developments are approved by the Board of Approvals, as are co-developers. They are authorised certain operations within the SEZ. The goods required for carrying out the authorised operations are eligible for exemptions under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. Section 2 of the SEZ Act defines 'imports' and 'exports' for the purpose of goods moving into and out of the SEZ. Likewise, an exporting unit is approved by the Approval Committee and is eligible for exemption under Section 26 of the SEZ Act for goods brought into and out of the SEZ. Section 2 of the SEZ Act defines 'imports' and 'exports' for the purpose of goods moving into and out of the SEZ. Likewise, an exporting unit is approved by the Approval Committee and is eligible for exemption under Section 26 of the SEZ Act for goods brought into and out of the SEZ. Procedures are prescribed under the SEZ Rules for taking goods into and out of the SEZ as well as claiming any benefits as laid down under the SEZ Rules. The goods supplied into the SEZ are considered as physical exports for exemption under the Central VAT duties/Central Excise duties under the SEZ Act. However, under the SEZ Rules, export documents - shipping bills are required to be filed and processed only when goods are consigned outside India or when the goods are brought from the domestic tariff area into an SEZ under drawback or for availing benefits under the FTP. In order to give effect to this system without recourse to amendments in the Customs Act or Central Excise Act, the SEZ Act by Section 53 deems zones to be territories outside the customs territory of India for undertaking authorized operations. Section 52 also specifically rescinds the erstwhile provisions of the Customs Act that referred to SEZs. The SEZs therefore, operate under the SEZ Act, for the purpose of exemptions from the tariffs imposed by the Union as well for clearance into the domestic tariff area on payment of duty. The procedures are independent of the Customs Act and are wholly governed by the SEZ Act and the Rules thereof. Twenty-six items have been subjected to export duty under the Customs Act till 31-3-2008. With effect from 10th May, 2008, the Finance Act, 2008 added sixteen items to the Second Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, which included items of iron and steel rendering them liable to export duty under the Customs Act. Effective rates of duty on these items were prescribed by a Notification dated 10-5-2008 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act and new effective rates of duty were further prescribed under a Notification dated 13-6-2008. It is contended that Section 47 or any other provisions of the SEZ Act cannot be read with any other provision of law unless the provision SEZ Act requires that to be done specifically or generally. It is contended that Section 47 or any other provisions of the SEZ Act cannot be read with any other provision of law unless the provision SEZ Act requires that to be done specifically or generally. It is further contended that Section 4 of the Customs Act has been invoked by Notifications to enable the officers under the SEZ Act to exercise powers under the. Customs Act outside the SEZ for a limited area and for a limited purpose in order to check the possibility of smuggling out of a SEZ. It is emphasized that there is no attempt to use exemption provision in Section 25 of the Customs Act to impose a duty. The duty of export of these items are prescribed under the amended Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act and the Notifications referred to above only fix the effective rate of duty to be levied within the ceiling of the prescribed rate of duty. Section 25 therefore has been pressed into service legally. The goods in question manufactured in India and supplied to SEZs are not subject to levy of Central Excise Duty by virtue of exemption under Section 26(1)(c) of the SEZ Act. It is contended that insofar as SEZs are concerned, the 'exports' and 'imports' are defined as including, bringing goods from a domestic tariff area into a SEZ in terms of Section 2(m) of the SEZ Act and such rates would not be covered by the exemptions on export duty granted under Section 26 for export out of the SEZ. The allegation that the impugned instructions seek to convert the SEZs into a foreign territory or a overseas territory is misplaced and incorrect. Duties of customs are levied under the Customs Act and the first respondent has merely conveyed the view of the Department of Revenue that export duty as per the Customs Notification would be applicable. Insofar as the contention that the impugned directions have created any artificial or notional theory to levy a duty is denied and it is stated that the duty is levied under the Customs Act, 1962 and collected by the authorized officer of the SEZ in accordance with the interpretation of the Department of Revenue. Insofar as the contention that the impugned directions have created any artificial or notional theory to levy a duty is denied and it is stated that the duty is levied under the Customs Act, 1962 and collected by the authorized officer of the SEZ in accordance with the interpretation of the Department of Revenue. It is supported by the opinion of the Ministry of Law, and the first respondent has merely conveyed its opinion and there is no instruction issued which runs contrary to the decisions of the Apex Court. Since the duties that are exempt are explicitly stated in Section 26 of the SEZ Act and since Section 51 of the Act overrides all other laws, exemption is required to be granted only to duties enumerated under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. Insofar as the decision of the Gujarat High Court sought to be relied upon is concerned, it is stated that the same is subject to challenge before the Apex Court and therefore, cannot be pressed into service in support of the petitioners and hence seeks that the petition be dismissed. 6. In the light of the above contentions, the questions that would arise for consideration are,- (i) Whether export duty can be levied under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005? (ii) Whether export duty could be imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 while incorporating the definition of the expression "export" under the SEZ Act, 2005, into the Customs Act, 1962? 7. To answer these questions, we may briefly look at the provisions of the relevant statutes. The Customs Act, 1962 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to customs. Under Section 2(15), the expression "duty" is defined to mean a duty of customs leviable under the said Act. "Export" is defined under Section 2(18) to mean with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions 'taking out of India to a place outside India'. The expression "export goods" is defined under Section 2(19) to mean goods which are to be taken out of India to a place outside India and the expression "importer" is defined under Section 2(20) to mean in relation to any goods at any time between their entry for export and the time when they are exported and would include any owner or any person himself out to be "exporter". The expression "import" is defined under Section 2(23) to mean bringing into India from a place outside India and "imported goods" is defined under Section 2(25) to mean any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption. "Importer" is defined under Section 2(26) to mean in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer. "India" is defined under Section 2(27) to include the territorial waters of India. Section 12 contained in Chapter V. of this Act provides that except as otherwise provided under the Act, or any other law for time being in force, the duties of customs shall be levied at such rates, as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or any other law for the time being in force on goods imported into or exported from India. Section 14 of the Act provides for the valuation of the goods for the purposes of assessment and it is provided therein that for the purposes of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other [law] for the time being in force wherein a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to other value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation as the case may be in the course of international trade. Chapter-XA incorporating special provisions relating to a Special Economic Zone were inserted by Act 20 of 2002, effective from 11-5-2002 and the same have been omitted vide Section 99 of the Finance Act, 2007, with effect from 11-5-2007. Section 76B which was operative during the above-mentioned periods provided that the provisions of the said Chapter and other Chapters shall apply to goods admitted to a SEZ but in the event of conflict between the provisions of the said Chapter and the other Chapters, the provisions of the said Chapter would prevail. Section 76E provided for exempt from duties of customs and Section 76F provided for levy of customs. The SEZ was one of the measures adopted by the Government to promote exports from India. Section 76E provided for exempt from duties of customs and Section 76F provided for levy of customs. The SEZ was one of the measures adopted by the Government to promote exports from India. An act for SEZ was passed and the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 became effective 10-2-2006. The Rules were notified on 10-2-2006 and the Act, as already noted provides for the establishment, development and management of the SEZs for the promotions of exports and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(i) defines "Domestic Tariff Area" to mean the whole of India including the territorial waters and the continental shelf but, does not include the areas of the SEZs. The expression "entrepreneur" is defined under Section 2(15) to mean a person who has been granted a letter of approval by the Development Commissioner under Sub-section (9) of Section 15. An existing Special Economic Zone is defined under Section 2(k) to mean every SEZ which is in existence on or before the commencement of the Act of 2005. Similar is the definition in respect of an "existing unit". The expression "export" is defined under Section 2(m) to mean taking goods or providing services out of India from a SEZ by land, sea, or air or by any other mode, whether physically or otherwise or supplying the goods or providing services from the Domestic Tariff Area to a unit or a developer or supplying goods or providing services from one unit to another unit or developer for the same or different SEZs. The expression "import" is defined under Section 2(o) to mean bringing goods or receiving services in a SEZ by a unit or a developer from a place outside India by land, sea or air by any other mode whether physically or otherwise or receiving goods or services by a unit or developer from another unit or developer of the same SEZ or a different SEZ. Section 2(zd) provides that all the other words and expressions used and not defined under the Act, but defined under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Acts. 8. 8. For the sake of convenience, the definition of the expressions - "export" and "import" as defined under the SEZ Act and the expressions - 'export', 'export goods', 'import' and 'imported goods' as defined under the Customs Act, 1962, are reiterated hereunder in a tabular form, to readily discern the differences between the definitions under the two Acts: The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 The Customs Act, 1962 Import import means - (i) bringing goods or receiving services, in a Special Economic Zone, by a Unit or Developer from a place outside India by land, sea or air or by any other mode, whether physical or otherwise; or (ii) receiving goods, or services by a Unit or Developer from another Unit or Developer of the same Special Economic Zone or a different Special Economic Zone; "import", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India; Export "export" means - (i) taking goods, or providing services, out of India, from a Special Economic Zone, by land, sea or air or by any other mode, whether physical or otherwise; or (ii) supplying goods, or providing services, from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Unit or Developer; or (iii) supplying goods, or providing services, from one Unit to another Unit or Developer, in the same or different Special Economic Zone; "export", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking out of India to a place outside India; Imported goods "imported goods " means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption; Export goods "export goods " means any goods which are to be taken out of India to a place outside India; 9. It is seen that the Government of India with a view to curtail the increasing price of steel products imposed export duty of 20% by introducing Heading Nos. 27 to 41 in the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide amendment to the Finance Bill dated 28-4-2008. The Government of India simultaneously issued Notification No. 66/2008 dated 10-5-2008 prescribing the effective duty at 5% to 15% on various steel products. This Notification was subsequently amended by Notification No. 77/2008 dated 13-6-2008. 27 to 41 in the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide amendment to the Finance Bill dated 28-4-2008. The Government of India simultaneously issued Notification No. 66/2008 dated 10-5-2008 prescribing the effective duty at 5% to 15% on various steel products. This Notification was subsequently amended by Notification No. 77/2008 dated 13-6-2008. The authorities held that supplies to SEZs from a Domestic Tariff Area should be treated as exports and opined that such supplies would attract export duty. Since there was wide-spread objections by the industry, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued a letter wherein it was stated that the Department of Revenue had suggested that supply of steel products on which export duty is applicable should be permitted after payment of prescribed amount of duty. It is pursuant to this clarification that demands were raised on the petitioners to pay duty on export of steel products. It is in that background that the petitioners were before this Court. The levy of goods exported from India would be as per the definition of 'export' under the Customs Act, 1962 under Section 2(18) of the Customs Act, as already seen, "export" is defined as taking goods out of India to a place outside India. And "export goods" are likewise defined. In the absence of any definition of "export" would necessarily have to be as defined under the Customs Act, 1962. For purposes of the SEZ Act and to facilitate various benefits that are intended to be conferred on a SEZ territory in order to keep the costs from artificially increasing in relation to the operations from SEZ, the SEZ Act has been introduced in order not to impose any kind of domestic duties on the supplies made to the SEZs. Apparently, the definition of "export" under the SEZ Act was meant also to cover supply of goods from the Domestic Tariff Area to SEZ. Apparently, the definition of "export" under the SEZ Act was meant also to cover supply of goods from the Domestic Tariff Area to SEZ. Thus, under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, corresponding exemptions have been granted, keeping in view that the goods used by the SEZ should not be fastened with domestic duty liability, nor from any import duties when the SEZ imports and export duty was also exempt when the SEZ exports to any place outside India and it is also clear that it was in order to avoid the full incidence of domestic excise duty when goods are manufactured in a Domestic Tariff Area and supplied to a SEZ unit, the goods which moved from the Domestic Tariff Area from the SEZ were treated as an export. For goods manufactured in a DTA Section 26 provided exemption from excise duty drawback benefits were also made available on goods brought from the DTA into a SEZ treating the same as being they are exports for the purpose of the SEZ Act. But, with a view to defray such duties from being imposed on the SEZ units, the scheme of Drawback being granted on such duties was adopted by treating the supply made from DTA to a SEZ as an export. Section 7 of the SEZ Act provided that any goods procured from the DTA to a SEZ unit would be exempt from the payment of taxes, duties or cess, under all enactments specified in the First Schedule. It is thus clear that there was absolutely no intention to levy any kind of duty on the goods moving from a DTA into the SEZ. Though Section 53 of the SEZ Act provides that the SEZ shall be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India, for the purpose of undertaking its authorised operations the question would be whether a SEZ does not continue to be a part and parcel of India. If a SEZ was to be treated as being outside India, there was hardly any necessity under Section 26 to exempt from customs duty any goods which are imported into a SEZ and likewise exempt export duties when exported from a SEZ. Section 26 which provides for exemption and the manner of effectuating the exemptions are provided under the Rules. If a SEZ was to be treated as being outside India, there was hardly any necessity under Section 26 to exempt from customs duty any goods which are imported into a SEZ and likewise exempt export duties when exported from a SEZ. Section 26 which provides for exemption and the manner of effectuating the exemptions are provided under the Rules. Rule 12 lays down that goods may be procured from the DTA without payment of duty, taxes and cess. Thus, if there is a manufacture in the DTA excise duty is not levied on the goods entering the SEZ area. Likewise, no customs duties are imposed when goods move from the DTA to a SEZ in terms of the Rule. Rule 27 also lays down that procurement from a DTA shall be without payment of duty and taxes. Export entitlements are also extended to the DTA units. It is seen that when a DTA clears its goods to SEZ unit, the transaction is treated as if it is a export from the DTA to the SEZ. A Bill of export is filed by the DTA unit and all duty paid is refunded to the DTA unit by way of drawback, rebate and so on. If export duty is to be levied under Schedule II to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 it is only if the goods supplied from the DTA to SEZ are treated as if they are in export out of India. In the absence of definition of "export" under the SEZ Act, rendering the transaction of goods from a DTA into a SEZ to an export outside India, it would be wholly incongruous. As seen from the definition of "export", it indicates a supply of goods from DTA to the SEZ unit. But, it does not indicate that such a supply ought to be treated as supply of goods being exported outside the territory of India as is the definition of "export" under the Customs Act. Hence, it is not possible to hold that by a deeming fiction the supply to a SEZ unit from DTA would amount to goods moving outside India. Therefore, it is emphasized that Section 26 itself providing that no customs duty is payable by the SEZ unit by way of exemption. Hence, it is not possible to hold that by a deeming fiction the supply to a SEZ unit from DTA would amount to goods moving outside India. Therefore, it is emphasized that Section 26 itself providing that no customs duty is payable by the SEZ unit by way of exemption. When the goods are re-imported into the SEZ unit and likewise, exports from SEZ also not subject to the duty under Section 26. It was wholly unnecessary to provide for such exemptions if the SEZ was treated as being outside India, in which case, there would neither be any import customs duty nor export customs duty as for all purposes, SEZ would be outside India. Rule 30, which lays down that a DTA supplier, supplying the goods to a SEZ unit, has to clear the goods "as in the case of exports" either under bond or as duty paid goods and claim rebate. The phrase "as in the case of exports" was introduced to effectuate the benefits for a supply carried out by a DTA supplier to a SEZ unit and this rule cannot be equated with a provision of a Act of plenary legislation to render the DTA supply into the SEZ as being export outside India. It is also necessary to note that it is in consonance with the overall scheme to prevent any duty impact on DTA goods supplied to the SEZ, the provisions of the Customs, Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 promulgated under Section 75 of the Customs Act were suitably amended only for this purpose, whereby the definition of "export" was amended to read that it ought to be understood as taking out of India to a place outside India or "taking out from a place in a Domestic Tariff Area to a Special Economic Zone. This was obviously on account of the fact that as per Rule 27 read with Section 26, drawback has to be allowed which is referable to the said drawback Rules when the domestic tariff supplies to a SEZ and therefore the amendment was made in the definition of "export". 10. This was obviously on account of the fact that as per Rule 27 read with Section 26, drawback has to be allowed which is referable to the said drawback Rules when the domestic tariff supplies to a SEZ and therefore the amendment was made in the definition of "export". 10. Incidentally, it is brought to the attention of the Court that a similar argument was advanced with reference to erstwhile EPZ units, when they clear goods to the DTA, to be considered as being supplied outside India, whereby the EPZ units were treated as an island within India and to be not a part of India. Such contention was negatived by the apex Court in the case of Thermax Private Limited Vs. The Collector of Customs (Bombay) , New Customs House, AIR 1993 SC 1339 , to the effect that imports made into India would be entitled for the purpose of payment of countervailing duty to press into service the central excise exemptions which were sought to be denied on the reasoning that an export-oriented unit and export processing zones are deemed to be outside India and by such reasoning, when an EPZ Unit clears goods into a DTA, there was a measure of duty as if the goods were imported into India and countervailing duty, was also to be levied. The argument that excise exemption was not applicable since export-oriented units are to be treated as being outside India and re-processing activity had taken place outside India, was turned down by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Plastic Processors Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2000) 72 ECC 588 , which attained finality before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Plastic Processors 2005 (186) E.L.T. A27 (S.C.). 11. In the absence of any amendment of the expressions -"export" and "India" under the Customs Act, 1962, or any amendment under the charging Section 12, contemplating the movement of goods from the DTA to a SEZ as a taxable event entailing a levy of export duty, as in the case of export, the levy of export duty cannot be justified under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. This is apparent from the circumstance that such a charging provision namely. This is apparent from the circumstance that such a charging provision namely. Section 76F as was introduced by inserting Chapter-XA under the Customs Act, 1962, being a special provision relating to the SEZs, that Chapter having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2007 and in the absence of the newly added provision, contemplating the movement of goods as aforesaid, would amount to a taxable event, attracting levy of excise duty, it cannot be said that it is a taxable event under the Customs Act, 1962. As laid down by the Apex Court in A.V. Fernandez Vs. The State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657 , in construing fiscal statutes in determining the liability of subject tax, one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. 12. A reading of Rule 23 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, would indicate that supplies from the DTA to a SPZ would be eligible for export benefits as admissible under the FTP. The procedure to claim such benefits is provided under Rules 24 and 30. Rule 27 permits a unit or a developer under the SEZ to import or procure from the DTA all types of goods without payment of duty or procure from the DTA such goods after availing export entitlements. This would lead to the conclusion that export entitlements available on account of either the export of goods from the DTA to the SEZ are available either to the DTA supplier or a SEZ unit or a developer, at their option. Therefore, duty drawback and other export benefits would be available to either party at their option. This would lead to the conclusion that export entitlements available on account of either the export of goods from the DTA to the SEZ are available either to the DTA supplier or a SEZ unit or a developer, at their option. Therefore, duty drawback and other export benefits would be available to either party at their option. Such provision exempts goods brought in by the SEZ unit from all levies and duties and since the duty is leviable on the goods, it is not rational to contend that the export leviable on the goods, it is not rational to contend that the export from the DTA to the SEZ should be taxed while the inward movement of the goods from the DTA to the SEZ would be exempt. It is thus clear from the Statement of objects to the SEZ Act that the intention of the Legislature was to make available goods and services to the developer or unit, within the SEZ free of taxes and duties. Hence, the levy of export duty is neither expressly nor impliedly contemplated under the Act. The movement of goods from the DTA to the SEZ is treated as an export under the SEZ Act only by a legal fiction for the purposes of the Act, namely, for making available benefits as in the case of actual exports like, duty drawback and other export benefits to the SEZ unit or the developer or a DTA supplier at their option. To construe this movement of goods as entailing a liability of payment of duty would run counter to the purpose for which the legal fiction is created under the SEZ Act. The levy of export duty as is evident arises under the Customs law and not under the SEZ Act. The levy of customs duty on exports is sanctioned by Entry 83 of List 1 of the VII Schedule to the Constitution. 13. The respondents seeking to rely on the provisions of the SEZ Act would render' the provisions unconstitutional as a levy of customs duty on export of goods from India cannot be with reference to the provisions of the SEZ Act. The authorities under the SEZ Act are without jurisdiction in seeking to enforce the liability which could arise only under the Customs Act. Hence, the instructions issued by the respondents under the impugned notifications are wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. The authorities under the SEZ Act are without jurisdiction in seeking to enforce the liability which could arise only under the Customs Act. Hence, the instructions issued by the respondents under the impugned notifications are wholly illegal and cannot be sustained. It is therefore, declared that no export duty as would be payable for supply of goods by the parties in the DTA to the petitioners in the SEZs and all proceedings initiated in this regard are therefore liable to be quashed. 14. The petitions are allowed accordingly.