2020 (7) TMI 727 - HC - Customs

Validity of assessment order - demand of differential duty - classification of imported goods - fruit juice based drink - appealable order or not - HELD THAT - As it appears that the order impugned is an appealable one, involves adjudication of factual matters and concerns revenue of the government, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner deposits the Bank Guarantee in terms of the order dated 17th June, 2020, the respondent authority shall release the goods of the petitioner, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal within three working days from the date of furnishing the Bank Guarantee - petitioner also raises a claim for damages on account of the illegal act on the part of the respondents. The prayer of the petitioner for damages shall be left open to be decided by the appropriate court, as and when the petitioner prefers application in connection with the same. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in duty rate determination.
2. Conflict between Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) orders.
3. Appealability of the provisional assessment order.
4. Direction for the petitioner to prefer appeal.
5. Release of goods upon Bank Guarantee deposit.
6. Claim for damages.
7. Tagging issue of connected applications.

1. Discrepancy in Duty Rate Determination:
The petitioner challenges a provisional assessment order directing payment of duty at 28% instead of the claimed 12%. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) classified the goods as 'fruit juice based drink' under a specific tariff item. The petitioner argues the Assistant Commissioner's actions contradict the superior authority's decision.

2. Conflict Between Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Orders:
The petitioner asserts that given the regular importation of similar items, the Assistant Commissioner should adhere to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order. The dispute arises from differing interpretations of the classification of the imported goods.

3. Appealability of the Provisional Assessment Order:
The respondents argue that the impugned order is appealable, and any excess payment made by the petitioner can be refunded upon a finding of illegality during final assessment. The court deems the order to be appealable, involving factual adjudication and government revenue matters.

4. Direction for the Petitioner to Prefer Appeal:
Considering the appealable nature of the order and the significance of the issues involved, the court directs the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within a week. The appellate authority is instructed to expedite the appeal's disposal within ten days thereafter.

5. Release of Goods Upon Bank Guarantee Deposit:
The court orders the release of the petitioner's goods upon depositing a Bank Guarantee as per a specific order. The respondent authority must release the goods within three working days of the Bank Guarantee submission, maintaining the parties' rights and contentions in the pending appeal.

6. Claim for Damages:
The petitioner seeks damages for the alleged illegal actions of the respondents. The court leaves the decision on the damages claim open for the petitioner to pursue through the appropriate legal channels when filing a related application.

7. Tagging Issue of Connected Applications:
The court notes a tagging error with connected applications and directs the immediate de-tagging of the wrongly associated application. It schedules the correct application for listing on a specific date, subject to court convenience, and ensures prompt issuance of certified copies upon request compliance.