2022 (9) TMI 1303 - HC - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Seeking release the goods imported by the Petitioner - seeking issuance of detention certificate for waiver of demurrage and detention charges and properly execute the same - what should be the percentage of the differential duty? - HELD THAT - The petitioner has classified the subject goods under the Chapter Heading 8424 i.e., CTH 8424 - the classification has been affirmed by the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA). There is no dispute that the respondents/revenue had filed an application for review, which was dismissed by the ARA on 08.08.2022. Ordinarily, the goods should have been released, albeit, provisionally, only against a personal bond - List the matter on 10.03.2023.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of the writ petition seeking release of imported goods and waiver of demurrage charges.
2. Territorial jurisdiction objection raised by respondents.
3. Provisional release of goods against a bond and bank guarantee.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of imported goods against bills of entry and waiver of demurrage charges. The petitioner claimed that the goods were unnecessarily detained, causing demurrage and detention charges. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the release of goods or issuance of a detention certificate. The matter was listed for directions after the respondents accepted notice and sought instructions to resist the petition. The Advance Ruling Authority affirmed the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 8424, and the respondents were asked to return with instructions. The petitioner was allowed to move an application for amendment of the writ petition.

2. On a subsequent hearing date, the respondents raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court. After hearing both parties, the petitioner was granted leave to move an application for amending the writ petition. The petitioner was aggrieved by the continued detention of goods incurring demurrage charges. The court considered the possibility of provisional release of goods on a bond and bank guarantee. The respondents proposed a bank guarantee equivalent to 36% of the goods' value, while the petitioner argued for a lower percentage based on the duty differential.

3. The court acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of the duty differential for provisional release of goods. It was ordered that the goods be released provisionally against the petitioner's bond and bank guarantee. The respondents were directed to process the release application expeditiously. The court emphasized that the provisional release would not impact the merits of the case. The matter was listed for further proceedings, and parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.