2015 (9) TMI 512 - HC - Customs

Re-assessment of Bills of entry CVD mistakenly paid at 10% instead of 6% Petitioner from time to time imported Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane element for household type filters Petitioner claims that, at import stage Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) was paid; though mistakenly at rate of 10% Assertion of petitioner is that, notification had been issued by respondents, whereby CVD, on RO membrane, for household type filters, had been reduced to 6% Petitioner seeks direction for reassessment of 7 bills of entries Held that - Court inclined to direct respondents to dispose of representations of petitioners Needful will be done by respondents as expeditiously as possible Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Import of Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane element, payment of Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) at a higher rate, representation for reassessment, non-response by respondents, direction for disposal of representations based on a Division Bench order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported RO membrane elements for household water purifiers between 17.03.2012 and 11.07.2014. However, the CVD was paid mistakenly at a rate of 10% instead of the reduced rate of 6% as per a notification dated 11.07.2014 issued by the respondents.

2. The petitioner made representations to the respondents for reassessment based on the notification and existing documents. The first representation was submitted on 27.01.2015, followed by another on 27.01.2015, which was actually filed on 10.02.2015. Both representations remained unanswered by the respondents.

3. The petitioner sought a direction for reassessment of seven bills of entries considering the correct CVD rate. The petitioner also referenced a Division Bench order dated 06.02.2015 in a similar case titled "Mohit Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Anr" to support their claim.

4. The court, after considering the petitioner's submissions, directed the respondents to dispose of the representations promptly and instructed them to consider the Division Bench order while doing so. The respondents were given a deadline of eight weeks to complete the reassessment process.

5. The court disposed of the petition with these directions, emphasizing the need for expeditious action by the respondents. The judgment concluded with the issuance of a "Dasti" copy for necessary action.

This detailed analysis outlines the sequence of events, the petitioner's claims, the legal basis for the representation, and the court's directive for reassessment based on the correct CVD rate and the Division Bench order.