2021 (11) TMI 1051 - HC - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Glass - to be classified under Entry 7005 10, i.e. non-wired glass, having an absorbent, reflecting or non-reflecting layer or under Entry 7005 21, which is other non-wired glass coloured through the mass (body tinted), opacified, flashed or merely surface ground ? - benefit of the Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 1-6-2011 - HELD THAT - It would be seen that in the reply, the petitioner had only been making demands for documents and trying to give a legal colour to a purely factual aspect but did not even bother to state that in fact the material imported by them was not full body (other non-wired glass coloured through the mass (body tinted), opacified, flashed or merely surface ground) and covered by Entry 7005 21, or how it would be said to be covered by Entry 7005 10. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is extremely detailed and has given entire analysis not only of the product imported by the petitioner, but also quoted all the tests reports etc. We fail to understand why the petitioner did not file any detailed reply or did not submit any report from some other laboratory which may have supported the stand of the petitioner. It is not the case that the relief sought cannot be granted by the Appellate Authority. In the facts circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and dismiss this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Entry 7005 10 or 7005 21.
2. Validity of the impugned order declaring mis-classification.
3. Sufficiency of notice and consequences mentioned.
4. Petitioner's response and demands for documents.
5. Detailed analysis of the impugned order and lack of supporting evidence.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition under extraordinary jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the classification of imported goods under Entry 7005 10 or 7005 21. The petitioner, an importer of glass, classified the goods under Entry 7005 10, while the impugned order declared that they should be covered by Entry 7005 21, which relates to 'other non-wired glass colored through the mass (body tinted), opacified, flashed, or merely surface ground.'

2. The validity of the impugned order declaring mis-classification is challenged by the petitioner. The contention raised includes the absence of accompanying reports with the notice and the lack of mention of consequences regarding the benefit of a specific notification, resulting in a higher duty of 10 percent instead of 0 to 5 percent.

3. The sufficiency of the notice and the consequences mentioned therein are crucial aspects of the case. The petitioner argued that the notice only directed them to justify the classification without specifying further implications or the potential loss of benefits under a specific notification, leading to confusion and inadequate opportunity to respond effectively.

4. The petitioner's response and demands for documents play a significant role in the case. Despite requesting detailed documents and justifications for their classification under Entry 7005 10, the petitioner did not provide substantial evidence or reports supporting their stance, which could have strengthened their case during the proceedings.

5. The detailed analysis of the impugned order revealed a lack of supporting evidence from the petitioner's side. The court noted that the order extensively analyzed the imported product, quoted test reports, and provided a comprehensive overview, highlighting the petitioner's failure to submit a detailed reply or present supporting laboratory reports to bolster their classification claim.

6. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court. The court emphasized that the relief sought could be granted by the Appellate Authority, and in the absence of compelling reasons to interfere, the petition was not upheld. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence and the failure of the petitioner to substantiate their classification under Entry 7005 10 effectively.