http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAMESH ENTERPRISES ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COFFEE BOARD

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1990

BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) BENCH: MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR  403            1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 495  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 441 JT 1990 (4)   723  1990 SCALE  (2)1245

ACT:     Coffee Act, 1942/Coffee Rules, 1955: Auction sale--Terms and  conditions--Clause  10-increase or  reduction  in  duty within  45  days  from date of  auction--Equally  shared  by purchasers  and  Coffee  Board--Date  of  auction----Whether includible within the 45 days.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants, exporters under the provisions  of  the Coffee Act, 1942 and Coffee Rules, 1955 used to  participate in  the auction conducted by Respondent Board  and  purchase coffee  for export. The terms and conditions of the  auction sale  are fixed by the Board. In respect of an auction  held on  18.5.1977, some dispute arose on the  interpretation  of clause  10 of the terms and conditions. As per this  clause, any  increase or reduction in duty effected within  45  days from  the date of the auction inclusive of that date was  to be  shared  equally  between the Respondent  Board  and  the auction purchasers, with a view to fixing the reserve  price below which the specific lot of coffee was not to be sold at the auction.     When  the auction was held on 18.5.1977, the  Respondent Board  took into consideration the duty which  existed  till 17.5.1977.  However,  on 18.5.1977, the date  on  which  the auction was held, there was a reduction in duty. thereafter, the  Respondent-Board sent a circular to all the  registered exporters  demanding refund of the proportionate  amount  of reduced  duty as per clause 10 of the terms and  conditions. Accordingly, the exporters including the appellants refunded 50% of the reduction in the duty. After making the  payment, the appellants wrote to the Respondent-Board asking for  the return of the amount so paid on the ground that since  there was already a reduction in duty on the date of the  auction, it cannot be said that there was a reduction in duty  within 45  days  from  the date of  auction.  The  Respondent-Board refused to refund the amount, as according to it, the reduc- tion  in duty was effected on 18.5.1977 by  the  authorities and  neither  the Respondent-Board nor the  purchasers  were aware  of the same at the time of the auction, and that  the date of auction was includible within the period of 45  days

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

mentioned in clause 10. 496     The  appellants filed Writ Petitions in the  High  Court seeking  direction  to  the Respondent-Board  to  repay  the amount paid by them. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by  a Single Judge on the ground of maintainability. He also  held that  since 45 days were to be counted including the day  of auction, the Respondent-Board was entitled to  proportionate reduction in duty. The Division  Bench confirmed the same. Aggrieved.  the  appellants  preferred  appeals  by  special leave. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1. An increase or reduction in duty made  on  the day  of auction is also shareable between the  parties.  The purpose of including the day of auction in the period of  45 days,  contrary to the manner of computation of time in  the General  Clauses  Act, is obvious and is brought  home  more prominently by the present instance itself. [501B-D]     2.  Clause 10 of the Terms and Conditions  categorically states that any increase or reduction in taxes, duties  etc. within  45 days of the auction (inclusive of the day of  the auction) shall he shared between the auction purchasers  and the  Respondent-Board.  Neither  the Board nor  any  of  the auction purchasers was aware of the reduction in export duty for  which a communication was issued on 18th May, 1977  the date  of  auction itself. The board had  fixed  the  reserve price  on the basis of the export-duty which  was  prevalent till  17th May, 1977, the day prior to the date of  auction. The  imposts keep on changing and none of the parties has  a control  either  over their variation or over  the  time  of theft variation. The dates of auction have necessarily to be fixed in advance. It is to obviate the hardship or to  grant the  necessary benefit, as the case may be,  that  purposely the  period of 45 days laid down in clause 10 is  stipulated to include the day of the auction as well. [500E-H; 501A]

JUDGMENT: