9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 218 - HC - CustomsClassification of imported goods - GTL Light Paraffin or Light Diesel Oil - Conduct of retest of the goods-in-question in accordance with the Customs Circular No.30/2017 dated 18.07.2017 - Foreign Flag Vessel - dispute with regard to the product - HELD THAT - The grievance redressed by Mr. Soparkar, is that the Laboratory at Vadodara, carried out the test trying to determine whether the samples are LDO or not. The correct approach of any laboratory should be to verify whether the sample is GTL Light Paraffin or not. When the samples are dispatched tomorrow to the CRCL, Delhi, for retest, it should be dispatched with a letter requesting the CRCL, Delhi, to verify whether the samples are of GTL Light Paraffin or it is Light Diesel Oil - Post this matter for further hearing on 21.04.2022 on top of the Board.
Issues:
1. Retest of goods-in-question as per Customs Circular. 2. Seizure of a foreign flag vessel by Customs Department. 3. Discrepancy in goods declaration - Paraffin vs. Light Diesel Oil. 4. Non-compliance with court order for retesting. 5. Provisional release of the seized vessel. 6. Bond requirement for provisional release. 7. Dispute over the nature of the imported product - GTL Light Paraffin vs. Light Diesel Oil. 8. Correct approach for testing the nature of the product. Issue 1 - Retest of goods-in-question: The court had directed the respondent to conduct a retest of the goods in accordance with Customs Circular No.30/2017 and the applicant's request. The vessel was seized based on doubts raised by the DRI regarding the nature of the goods declared as Paraffin but tested as Light Diesel Oil by the Central Excise and Customs Laboratory. The court expressed concern over the non-compliance with the retesting order and gave the DRI a final opportunity to forward the samples to CRCL, Delhi, for retesting within a week. Issue 2 - Seizure of the vessel: The vessel, a foreign flag vessel registered in Singapore, was seized by the Customs Department under DRI instructions and is currently at Kandla. The dispute arose due to discrepancies in the declaration of goods and the subsequent testing results, leading to the court's intervention for a retest to determine the actual nature of the goods. Issue 3 - Discrepancy in goods declaration: The applicant claimed the goods were GTL Light Paraffin, while the Revenue contended they were Light Diesel Oil. The court noted the need for proper testing to ascertain the exact nature of the product, emphasizing the importance of verifying whether the samples are GTL Light Paraffin or Light Diesel Oil during the retesting process. Issue 4 - Non-compliance with court order: The court expressed dissatisfaction with the DRI's failure to comply with the retesting order despite specific directions. The Senior Intelligence Officer's lack of explanation for the delay prompted the court to give a final opportunity for the samples to be sent for retesting within a specified timeline. Issue 5 - Provisional release of the vessel: An order for the provisional release of the seized vessel had been passed, subject to the applicant furnishing a Bond and a bank guarantee. The court acknowledged the difficulty faced by the applicant in providing the Bond due to their operations being based in Singapore, allowing time for the issue to be discussed and resolved before the next hearing. Issue 6 - Dispute over the nature of the imported product: The core dispute revolved around the exact nature of the imported product, with conflicting claims between the applicant and the Revenue regarding whether it was GTL Light Paraffin or Light Diesel Oil. The court stressed the importance of accurate testing to determine the true nature of the goods. Issue 7 - Correct approach for testing the nature of the product: The court directed that the retesting process should focus on verifying whether the samples are GTL Light Paraffin or Light Diesel Oil. It emphasized the need for the CRCL, Delhi, to carry out the test promptly and provide the report within a week, with the Senior Intelligence Officer responsible for ensuring the timely completion of the retesting process. This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the key legal aspects and actions taken by the court to resolve the dispute surrounding the seized vessel and the nature of the imported goods.
|
