2016 (7) TMI 1244 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - misdeclaration of nature of goods - Hot Rolled Coils and Sheets or Cold Rolled Coils and Sheets? - Held that - on testing the goods were found to be Cold Rolled products. Misdeclaration of thickness of coils - Held that - it was mentioned as 0.5 mm to 1.00 mm in the bills of entry, however on testing, these were found in the range of 1.5 mm to 2.0 mm. On account of this mis-declaration, the importers will not be entitled for exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty under notification Nos. 152 & 187 dated 31.12.2009. The petitioners shall furnish bank guarantee to the customs authorities and the interest thereon before release of the consignments - The goods are now directed to be released to the petitioners on payment of duty whatever is due on the import after adjusting the duty, already paid. Petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over the nature of imported material - Hot Rolled or Cold Rolled Steel; Mis-declaration of thickness in the imported goods; Entitlement to exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty; Dispute over storage, demurrage, and freight charges.

Nature of Imported Material:
The petitioners imported consignments of Cold Rolled sheets and Coils which were detained by DRI on the ground of mis-declaration, claiming the goods were actually Hot Rolled. Two reports conflicted on the material's nature, with one suggesting Hot Rolled and the other Cold Rolled. The court ordered samples to be sent to Bokaro Steel Plant, which confirmed all consignments as "Cold Rolled." DRI filed an affidavit alleging mis-declaration in thickness, affecting exemption from Basic Customs Duty.

Mis-Declaration of Thickness:
DRI alleged that the thickness of imported coils was mis-declared, impacting entitlement to exemption from Basic Customs Duty under specific notifications. Discrepancies were found between declared thickness (0.5 mm to 1.00 mm) and actual thickness (1.5 mm to 2.0 mm), leading to a dispute over duty exemption.

Exemption from Basic Customs Duty:
The dispute revolved around whether the petitioners, due to mis-declaration issues, were entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty. The court directed the release of goods upon payment of due duty, with the petitioners required to furnish a bank guarantee for disputed duty exemption amounts.

Storage, Demurrage, and Freight Charges Dispute:
The Shipping Lines and Mumbai Port Trust sought payment for storage, demurrage, and freight charges before releasing the goods. The petitioners contended they had paid freight charges and disputed additional charges, claiming the detention was unjustified due to the goods being Cold Rolled Steel. The court directed a separate consideration of these charges and required the petitioners to clear freight charges before release.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the release of goods upon payment of due duty, with the petitioners required to furnish a bank guarantee for disputed duty exemption amounts. Disputes over storage, demurrage, and freight charges were to be separately considered. The petitioners were directed to clear freight charges before release, with adjournment set for further proceedings.