9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 794 - HC - CustomsTesting of export goods - whether the goods exported by the petitioner was a rigid spiral or not and hence the sample may be referred to the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering Technology (CIPET), Guindy, Chennai and sealed remanent returned? - HELD THAT - During the course of proceedings before the Revisional Authority namely, the first respondent, the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering Technology (CIPET) appears to have apparently given a different opinion by its communication dated 12.05.2009 in respect of the same material. Though this has been considered by the first respondent Revisional Authority, it is to be emphasized that the testing authority is not a competent authority to determine the classification. Its role is limited to give indicators of chemical composition for a final determination of correct classification by the assessing officer. The case should be remitted back to the third respondent to re-determine the correct classification for the purpose of grant of duty drawback to the petitioner on the export made by it in terms of the Schedule to the duty drawback - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Incorrect challenge in Writ Petition 2. Multiple orders challenged 3. Competency of testing authority 4. Correct classification determination Issue 1: Incorrect challenge in Writ Petition The judgment begins by highlighting that the Writ Petition was initially dismissed due to the assumption that the petitioner had wrongly challenged only one specific order, when in fact, the petition encompassed a consolidated relief challenging multiple orders. This misunderstanding led to the dismissal of the petition with liberty granted to approach the appropriate forum against the impugned order. Issue 2: Multiple orders challenged Upon further review, it was discovered that the petitioner had not only contested the Order in Original passed by the third respondent but also subsequent orders by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Revisional Authority. Recognizing this error, the court recalled the previous order and proceeded to address the consolidated relief sought by the petitioner against all the relevant orders. Issue 3: Competency of testing authority The judgment delves into the role of the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET) as a testing authority in determining the classification of the goods exported by the petitioner. It notes discrepancies in the opinions provided by CIPET at different times and emphasizes that while CIPET can offer indicators of chemical composition, the final determination of correct classification rests with the assessing officer. Issue 4: Correct classification determination In light of the conflicting opinions from CIPET, the court concluded that the impugned orders should be quashed, and the case remitted back to the third respondent for a fresh determination of the correct classification. The judgment directs the third respondent to consider the clarification issued by CIPET and make a new classification based on chemical composition and physical attributes within a specified timeframe. In summary, the judgment addressed the errors in the initial dismissal of the Writ Petition, the challenge against multiple orders, the role of the testing authority in classification determination, and the necessity for a fresh classification based on the CIPET's clarification.
|
