2018 (3) TMI 971 - HC - GST

Classification of imported goods - GSL ARTEMIA BRINE SHRIMP EGGS - petitioner sought to avail concessional duty (preferential rate of 0% IGST as against 5% IGST) by relying upon Notification No.002/2017-Cus dated 28.06.2017 in Sl.No.33 - respondent opined that the item imported by the petitioner should be classified under IGST Notification No.001/2017 Sl.No.I-21 - Held that - Prima facie this Court is of the view that the respondent could not invoke Section 111(m) of the Customs Act as there appears to be no allegation that the goods do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Act. In the impugned order, the respondent has accepted that there is no dispute in the classification of the goods. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original regarding duty classification and exemption claimed under Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order-in-original related to an import of GSL ARTEMIA BRINE SHRIMP EGGS from the USA. The petitioner self-assessed duty under Customs Act, 1962, seeking a concessional rate of IGST. However, the respondent disagreed and classified the goods under a different notification, leading to a differential duty assessment. The respondent invoked Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, re-assessed previous imports, and ordered confiscation of goods, with an option for redemption. The court noted that Section 111(m) might not apply as there was no dispute in goods classification. The petitioner sought release of goods to prevent spoilage due to short shelf life and delay in appellate proceedings.

The court granted the petitioner liberty to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) within 30 days. The petitioner was directed to pay the differential duty and redemption fine, after which the respondent would provisionally release the cargo. A bond was required for the redemption fine and penalty, to be maintained until the appeal's disposal. The petitioner could raise all points before the appellate authority, which should decide independently. Additionally, the petitioner was entitled to a detention certificate for the period of detention, subject to waiver application.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions for appeal, duty payment, bond requirement, appellate authority's independence, and detention certificate issuance. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.