2013 (5) TMI 682 - HC - Customs

Condition for release the goods - exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004 - Held that - Considering the subject matter of goods are lying for a long time, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction against the respondents to release the subject matter of goods concerned in respect of the above said Bill of Entry subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to the entire value of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) to the satisfaction of the second respondent, which should be kept alive till adjudication process is completed. It is made clear that as and when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall forthwith release the goods. See Shiv Shanti Exim Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Customs 2011 (7) TMI 306 - MADRAS HIGH COURT .

Issues:
1. Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE.
3. Interpretation of Final Orders passed by CESTAT.
4. Abuse of process of law by the 2nd respondent.
5. Previous court orders regarding similar issues.

1. Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) under Notification No.30/2004-CE:
The petitioner, engaged in the import and trading of silk yarn and silk fabrics, filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE for Woven Silk Fabrics. The 2nd respondent denied the exemption, citing that it applies only to goods manufactured in India without availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The petitioner sought relief based on the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

2. Eligibility for exemption under Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE:
The petitioner referred to Final Orders of CESTAT from 2008, stating that the impugned goods are eligible for the exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE. The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent's refusal to assess the Bills of Entry without including CVD and not clearing the goods was an abuse of the law. The petitioner approached the High Court as a last resort due to the lack of alternative remedies.

3. Interpretation of Final Orders passed by CESTAT:
The Final Orders of CESTAT in 2008 explicitly ruled that the goods in question were eligible for the exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE. The petitioner emphasized that the 2nd respondent's actions were contrary to the CESTAT's decisions, leading to a petition to the High Court for resolution.

4. Abuse of process of law by the 2nd respondent:
The petitioner alleged that the 2nd respondent's refusal to assess the Bills of Entry without including CVD and not clearing the goods, despite the CESTAT's orders, amounted to an abuse of the legal process. This prompted the petitioner to seek relief through a Writ Petition in the High Court.

5. Previous court orders regarding similar issues:
The High Court referred to a previous order from 2010, where similar relief was granted in a different case. Following the precedent, the High Court directed the respondents to release the goods subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire value of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) until the adjudication process was completed. This decision was made without imposing any costs on the petitioner.

← Previous Next →