2021 (3) TMI 36 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of imported goods - articles of gold i.e. images of different deities which are decorative images made out of gold sheets - Classification of goods under dispute - HELD THAT - The petitioner had earlier moved the adjudicating authority for provisional release of the imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 on 03.03.2020 but to no avail - it is also found from the writ petition that for import of identical goods for the period from 09.03.2017 to 23.12.2017 and again for the period from 13.01.2018 to 14.06.2018 bills of entries of the petitioner were cleared by accepting identical classification declared by the petitioner. Though a dispute was raised in respect of bill of entry No. 7262799 dated 18.07.2018, however at the intervention of the Commissioner, the imported goods were cleared on bond without insisting on any bank guarantee. It would be in the interest of justice if a decision is taken by the proper officer for release of the imported goods of the petitioner for home consumption either on the basis of provisional assessment or under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Let such decision be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Stand over to 16th March, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading
2. Principles of natural justice not followed during re-classification
3. Delay in decision-making by adjudicatory authority
4. Provisional release of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962

Classification of Imported Goods:
The petitioner, a private limited company trading in imported gold articles, faced classification issues with its bill of entry for gold sheets of deities. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the initial classification under CTH No. 71141910, re-classifying the goods under CTH No. 39264039 and denying a specific notification's benefit. Upon appeal, the appellate authority found a lack of natural justice in the process, setting aside the original order and remanding the matter for corrective action.

Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellate authority noted the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before re-classification, highlighting a violation of principles of natural justice. This lack of procedural fairness led to the order in original being set aside, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing to parties involved in customs classification disputes.

Delay in Decision-Making:
Despite the remand for remedial action, the adjudicatory authority failed to make a decision, causing further delays in resolving the classification issue. The High Court acknowledged the inaction and directed the proper officer to decide on the release of the imported goods within two weeks, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication in customs matters.

Provisional Release under Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner had previously sought provisional release of imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, but the request was unsuccessful. The High Court, without expressing a final opinion, suggested that a decision be made for the release of the goods either provisionally or under the mentioned Act, emphasizing the importance of facilitating the release process in the interest of justice.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed issues related to the classification of imported goods, adherence to principles of natural justice, delays in decision-making by the adjudicatory authority, and the potential for provisional release under the Customs Act, 1962. The High Court's directive for timely decision-making and consideration of provisional release options aimed to ensure procedural fairness and efficient resolution of the petitioner's customs classification dispute.