2002 (1) TMI 75 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on KHS-68.
2. Validity and applicability of the notification dated 22nd May 2000.
3. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
4. Jurisdiction of the writ court in adjudicating classification disputes.
5. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on KHS-68:
The petitioner challenged the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Styrene Butadine Co-polymer Resins KHS-68, arguing that the duty was imposed without proper investigation and was ultra vires to Sections 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the 1995 Rules. The petitioner contended that no anti-dumping duty could be imposed on KHS-68 since it falls under Chapter 39, not Chapter 40, as per the Customs Tariff classification.

2. Validity and Applicability of the Notification Dated 22nd May 2000:
The petitioner argued that the notification dated 22nd May 2000, which imposed anti-dumping duty on KHS-68, was not applicable because KHS-68 falls under Chapter 39.03. The petitioner claimed that the notification was based on an incorrect classification and was therefore ultra vires to the relevant statutory provisions.

3. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioner:
The Customs department contended that the petitioner was guilty of gross suppression of material facts, including not disclosing the CEGAT order dated 2nd February 2000 and the Finance Ministry's notification dated 22nd May 2000. The petitioner also failed to disclose that RPPL, the indenting agent for the goods, had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the same notification.

4. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court in Adjudicating Classification Disputes:
The court noted that the writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for adjudicating classification disputes, which involve technical and factual investigations into the chemical compositions and commercial uses of the goods. The court cited several judgments to support this view, emphasizing that such matters should be resolved through the appropriate statutory mechanisms.

5. Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act:
The court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows for an appeal against the orders of the customs authorities. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks and instructed the appellate authority not to raise any objections regarding the limitation period if the appeal is filed within the specified timeframe.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ application, emphasizing that the petitioner did not come with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. The court also highlighted the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act and directed the petitioner to pursue this remedy. The court declined to interfere in the matter, considering the need for factual investigation into the disputed classification of the goods. Both writ applications and all related applications were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.