2019 (5) TMI 1744 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - implementation of final order - grievance of the Revenue is that, they had filed written submissions on 13 December, 2018 after the conclusion of the hearing on 27 November, 2018 and their written submissions have not been considered and/or taken on record - HELD THAT - The non-communication of the duty payable, by the respondent authority, so as to enable the appellant to seek release of their goods, amounts to interference in the process of delivery of justice. However, in view of the ROM application filed by Revenue, we give one more opportunity to the respondent authority, to communicate the duty payable to the applicant/appellant, within the three days of receipt of the copy of this order and upon of payment of the duty or balance duty by the appellant, shall release the goods within the next three days of communication of the duty having been paid. The respondent Commissioner is directed to consider the same in terms of Notification 26/2009-Cus. (N.T.), dated 17 March, 2019 in respect of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 under clause 6(1)(l) of the said Notification - The respondent authority shall file the compliance report of this order on or before 25 June, 2019. Put up before the Bench on 27 June, 2019 for ascertaining the compliance of this order. ROM dismissed.

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of written submissions by the Revenue in the Final Order.
2. Classification of goods under CTFI 63.10.
3. Effect of non-communication of duty payable on seeking release of goods.
4. Consideration of rent and demurrage charges by the custodian.
5. Compliance report submission by the respondent authority.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the consideration of written submissions by the Revenue in the Final Order. The Revenue contended that their written submissions were not considered, particularly regarding the classification of goods as plastic waste under CTH 39159041. However, upon revisiting the written submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue of classification had indeed been considered in detail in the Final Order. The Tribunal noted that detailed observations were made based on submissions, including reports from CRCL and chartered engineers, leading to the conclusion that the goods were classifiable under CTFI 63.10 and not as proposed by the Revenue under Chapter Heading No. 3915.

2. The second issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the effect of non-communication of duty payable on seeking the release of goods. The appellant-importer raised concerns about the non-assessment of duty by the respondent authority, which hindered their ability to pay the duty and seek the release of goods as per the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal acknowledged that the failure to communicate the duty payable amounted to interference in the delivery of justice. Consequently, the respondent authority was given an additional opportunity to communicate the duty payable within three days of the order, and upon payment by the appellant, the goods were to be released promptly.

3. Another issue discussed in the judgment is the consideration of rent and demurrage charges by the custodian. The Tribunal directed the respondent Commissioner to evaluate these charges in accordance with Notification 26/2009-Cus. (N.T.) under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. This directive aimed to ensure that the appellant was not unduly burdened with additional charges during the process of seeking the release of goods.

4. Lastly, the judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with the orders issued by the Tribunal. The respondent authority was directed to file a compliance report by a specified date, with a subsequent review scheduled to ascertain the adherence to the order. This aspect underscored the significance of timely and accurate compliance with judicial directives to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed multiple issues related to the consideration of written submissions, classification of goods, communication of duty payable, assessment of additional charges, and compliance reporting, ensuring a comprehensive and fair resolution in the context of the legal dispute.

← Previous Next →