2018 (5) TMI 271 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Appellate remedy not availed of - petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without availing the appellate remedy against the impugned order - Held that - since the issue involved with regard to the classification of the product imported, the Division Bench of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the CESTAT, is denude of powers to decide a classification dispute, as appeal lies to the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction from this Court to rule on a classification dispute. On facts, it is admitted that the petitioner has been clearing the very same LCD panels by classifying the same under CTH 8529 for over three years. The question would be as to whether the petitioner at this juncture can claim that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH9013. The matter clearly involves appreciation of the factual position, what is the nature of the product imported by the petitioner etc. Undoubtedly, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by a Writ Court. Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order vacating protest on differential duty paid on import of LCD panels, classification of LCD panels under Customs Act, efficacy of appeal remedy, judicial discipline in following tribunal decisions, onerous condition for appeal remedy, maintainability of Writ Petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order vacating the protest on the duty amount paid for imported LCD panels. The petitioner argued that the classification adopted for LCD panels was ultra vires the principles of classification under the Customs Act. They contended that LCD panels should be classified under CTH9013, citing relevant rules and judicial pronouncements. The petitioner also raised concerns about the onerous condition of pre-deposit for appealing the reassessment.

2. The respondent argued that the impugned order was appealable, and the petitioner could have approached the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). They highlighted the petitioner's change in classification from CTH8529 to CTH9013 to avoid increased tariff rates, emphasizing the petitioner's consistent classification under CTH8529 for years.

3. The court noted the petitioner's failure to avail the appellate remedy and the limitations of the High Court in deciding classification disputes. The court emphasized that the Division Bench lacked jurisdiction to rule on classification disputes, as appeals lie to the Supreme Court in such matters. The court highlighted the factual nature of the issue and the necessity for interpretation of the imported product.

4. The court rejected the petitioner's argument of bypassing the appellate remedy due to the onerous pre-deposit condition, citing the statutory requirement upheld by law. The court differentiated the present case from a Gujarat High Court decision, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions and appellate procedures.

5. Ultimately, the court held the Writ Petition as not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust the appellate remedy and the limitations of the High Court in deciding factual issues related to classification disputes. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal if desired, without imposing any costs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and the court's decision.