2015 (7) TMI 1075 - HC - Customs

Availment of benefit under Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 - for the period prior to the fresh notification issued raising CVD @ 6% - Payment of duty @ 2% CVD on goods imported through Nepal - Petitioner contended that representation made before Assistant Commissioner of Customs on 22.5.2015 has not yet been disposed of and he has been compelled to keep on paying CVD at the higher rate of 6 %, though under protest - Held that - let a fresh representation be filed by the petitioner along with a copy of the earlier representation dated 22.5.2015 as also a copy of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SRF Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT within a period of two weeks from today so that it may be disposed of expeditiously. - Writ application disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner denied benefit under notification No.01/2011-CE for paying duty at 2% CVD on goods imported through Nepal.
Delay in disposing of petitioner's representation by Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Validity of raising CVD to 6% through a fresh notification.

Analysis:
The petitioner's grievance revolves around being denied the benefit under notification No.01/2011-CE to pay duty at a reduced rate of 2% CVD on goods imported through Nepal. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in a previous case. They further contended that despite representing before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the matter remained unresolved, forcing the petitioner to continue paying duty at a higher rate of 6% under protest. The counsel emphasized the petitioner's right to avail of the lower duty rate before the issuance of the new notification increasing CVD to 6%.

The court acknowledged the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General representing the Customs Department. It was agreed that the Assistant Commissioner should promptly address the petitioner's representation. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks, including the previous representation and the Supreme Court's order. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to consider and dispose of this fresh representation within four weeks from its filing, ensuring a timely resolution to the petitioner's concerns.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ application, instructing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to expedite the review of the petitioner's representation. This judgment highlights the importance of timely decision-making by customs authorities and the right of importers to benefit from applicable duty notifications within the legal framework.