2015 (8) TMI 1504 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of seized goods - levy of ADD - Classification of goods - L-ASCORBATE 2-PHOSPATE - 35 PCT - It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents ought to have at least allowed provisional clearance and release of the goods, pending the dispute - 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. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Classification of goods for Anti Dumping Duty
- Release of imported goods pending dispute resolution

Analysis:
1. Classification of Goods for Anti Dumping Duty:
The petitioner, a small scale industry involved in manufacturing animal feeds supplements, imported goods classified under two headings. The primary issue was whether the goods attracted Anti Dumping Duty. The petitioner argued that the goods did not fall under the relevant notification for Anti Dumping Duty and sought reclassification under a different heading to avoid the duty. However, the respondents contended that the goods were correctly classified under a specific Customs Tariff Heading, necessitating the payment of Anti Dumping Duty. The court directed the authority to complete the adjudication process with a speaking order within four weeks to determine the correct classification for the goods attracting Anti Dumping Duty. It further ordered the petitioner to pay 50% of the determined Anti Dumping Duty for one item and execute a bond for the remaining amount for the release of the goods.

2. Release of Imported Goods Pending Dispute Resolution:
The petitioner raised concerns about the prolonged storage of the imported goods, sensitive to weather conditions in Chennai, which could lead to quality deterioration and financial losses due to heavy demurrage charges. The court acknowledged the urgency and directed the release of the goods upon compliance with the Anti Dumping Duty payment and bond execution for one item. For the other item where there was no dispute, both parties agreed on immediate release. This decision aimed to mitigate the petitioner's financial losses and prevent quality deterioration of the imported goods, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and release of goods pending disputes.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the classification issue for Anti Dumping Duty, ensuring a proper adjudication process and payment compliance by the petitioner for the release of goods. It also highlighted the importance of timely resolution and release of imported goods to prevent financial losses and quality deterioration, providing a balanced approach to the dispute resolution.