2023 (10) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Rejection of request for re-testing made by the petitioner in respect of the imported goods - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties if the test with regard to the imported goods of the petitioner viz., lining materials is conducted once again by a reputed laboratory engaged by the respondents to find out whether the imported goods contain Polyurethane or not and the cost for the same will have to be necessarily borne by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 1-11-2022 passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration with regard to the issue as to whether the imported goods of the petitioner under the Bill of Entry dated 16-7-2022 contains Polyurethane or not with the directions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of re-testing request for imported goods; Dispute over presence of Polyurethane in imported lining materials; Allegations of Anti-Dumping Duty imposition based on conflicting laboratory reports; Non-compliance with prescribed procedure; Request for fresh testing by independent laboratory.

Analysis:
The petitioner imported lining materials from China and contested the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty, claiming the materials contained only Polyethelene, not Polyurethane. The petitioner presented a favorable laboratory report to support this claim, while the respondents relied on a conflicting report indicating the presence of Polyurethane. The respondents argued their report preceded the petitioner's, justifying the duty imposition. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the circular dated 18-7-2017, challenging the rejection of re-testing request. The petitioner proposed fresh testing by an independent laboratory at their expense to determine the truth. The Court agreed, quashing the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondents for re-evaluation.

The Court directed the respondents to appoint a reputed laboratory to test the samples within four weeks and communicate the findings within one week of receiving the report. The petitioner was instructed to bear the testing costs upon intimation by the respondents. The Court emphasized that this approach would cause no prejudice to either party. Ultimately, the judgment aimed to resolve the dispute regarding the presence of Polyurethane in the imported goods through an independent re-testing process, ensuring fairness and accuracy in determining the liability for Anti-Dumping Duty.