9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 870 - HC - CustomsDetention of goods - Levy of anti dumping duty - import of 3 MTS of L-ASCORBATE 2-PHOSPATE - 35 PCT AND 2 MTS MONO POTASSIUM PHOSPATE - Wrong classification of goods - Held that - The issue relating to classification of items viz, whether the goods would attract Anti Dumping Duty or not, can be looked into by the authority concerned by adopting proper adjudication process followed by a speaking order, which is yet to be made. Hence, such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, for the purpose of release of goods i.e., L-ASCORBATE 2-PHOSPATE - 35 PCT, 50% of the Anti Dumping Duty as determined shall be paid by the petitioner and for the balance amount, a bond as directed by the authority concerned is directed to be executed by the petitioner. On such compliance, the goods shall be released forthwith. As far as the other item viz., MONO POTASSIUM PHOSPATE, it is mutually agreed by both the counsel on record that there is no dispute. Hence, the respondents are directed to release the said goods forthwith. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Classification of goods for Anti Dumping Duty 2. Delay in release of imported goods 3. Dispute over Customs Tariff Heading classification 4. Request for provisional clearance of goods 5. Allegations of heavy demurrage charges Issue 1: Classification of goods for Anti Dumping Duty The petitioner, a small-scale industry, imported goods for animal feed supplements but faced objections regarding the levy of Anti Dumping Duty on the first lot of goods. The petitioner argued that the goods did not fall under the relevant notification for Anti Dumping Duty. The respondents disagreed and maintained that the correct classification was under Customs Tariff Heading 29362700. The court directed the authorities to complete the adjudication process within four weeks and ordered the petitioner to pay 50% of the Anti Dumping Duty for the release of the goods. Issue 2: Delay in release of imported goods The petitioner contended that the prolonged storage of the imported goods could lead to quality deterioration due to Chennai's weather conditions. The goods were held up, incurring demurrage and container detention charges. The court acknowledged the sensitivity of the goods and directed immediate release upon compliance with the Anti Dumping Duty payment and bond execution. Issue 3: Dispute over Customs Tariff Heading classification The petitioner sought reclassification of the goods under HSN Chapter 2309, but the respondents insisted on the original classification under Customs Tariff Heading 29362700. The court emphasized the need for a speaking order when re-assessment contradicts self-assessment by the importer. It ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the correct classification was under the specified Customs Tariff Heading. Issue 4: Request for provisional clearance of goods The petitioner argued that the respondents should have allowed provisional clearance of the goods pending the classification dispute. The court noted the petitioner's concerns but required compliance with the Anti Dumping Duty payment and bond execution for the release of goods. Issue 5: Allegations of heavy demurrage charges The petitioner highlighted the financial burden of heavy demurrage and container detention charges incurred due to the delayed release of goods. The court's directive for immediate release upon compliance aimed to alleviate the petitioner's financial strain caused by the storage charges. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, directing the release of goods upon compliance with Anti Dumping Duty payment and bond execution. The judgment aimed to resolve the classification dispute and address the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the delay and financial implications of the goods' storage.
|
