9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 461 - HC - CustomsCharging Event - levy of definitive countervailing duty - Notification dated 7th September, 2017 - Goods cleared from warehouse - section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - Issue Notice returnable on 13th November, 2019 - By way of ad-interim relief, further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 13.9.2019 (Annexure-G to the petition) are hereby stayed.
Issues: Interpretation of section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding levy of definitive countervailing duty on imported goods.
In this judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the petitioner argued that since there was no definitive countervailing duty imposed at the time of import, they should not be liable to pay it. The petitioner relied on section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, which specifies the charging event as the import of goods into India. The court noted that the levy under the Customs Act occurs at the stage of import, not when goods are cleared from a warehouse. The petitioner also cited a Supreme Court ruling stating that goods manufactured before the levy of duty are not dutiable. The court agreed with the petitioner's interpretation and granted an ad-interim relief, staying further proceedings based on the show cause notice seeking to recover the duty. The petitioner further referenced a decision by the Delhi High Court and a previous judgment by the Gujarat High Court to support their argument. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted a Madras High Court decision regarding section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, which contradicted the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court and other courts. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities should adhere to the established legal principles rather than the Madras High Court decision. The court observed that the impugned show cause notice was conclusive in nature, indicating the authorities' intent to recover the definitive countervailing duty from the petitioner. In response to the arguments presented by the petitioner, the court issued a notice returnable on a specified date and granted ad-interim relief by staying further proceedings based on the show cause notice. The court permitted direct service regarding the respondent No.2 in this matter.
|
