2024 (10) TMI 160 - HC - Customs

Challenge to final assessment of imported goods under incorrect customs tariff heading - UPVC Profiles - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3916 2019 or under a Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3925 2000? - contrary to the mandate of Regulation 6(3) of the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 - HELD THAT - There are no documents forthcoming from the respondent to indicate that the petitioner had indeed accepted the classification of the imported item under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3925 2000. The data that is available in the Check List dated 17.04.2021 indicates that the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that the imported item was UPVC profiles, merits classification under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3916 2019. That apart, it is noticed that import by the petitioner from the Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited has been now assessed under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3916 2019 attracting 10% customs duty. There shall be a positive direction to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with Regulation 6(3) of the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Writ Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner challenging final assessment of imported goods under incorrect customs tariff heading. Allegation of incorrect classification and differential duty imposed. Request for speaking order under Customs Act, 1962. Discrepancy in classification of goods between current assessment and previous assessment. Argument for uniformity in classification under Central Enactments. Respondent's contention of assessment based on petitioner's declaration. Mention of query raised by department and subsequent acceptance by petitioner. Lack of evidence of petitioner's acceptance of classification under disputed heading. Discrepancy in assessment of goods imported from different ports. Court's direction for fresh assessment in accordance with regulations.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the final assessment of imported goods under an incorrect customs tariff heading, claiming that the goods were UPVC profiles falling under a specific classification attracting 10% duty. However, the respondent assessed the goods under a different heading attracting a higher duty of 15%. The petitioner argued that the reclassification was contrary to regulations and required a speaking order under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner pointed out a previous assessment where the classification was accepted, emphasizing the need for uniformity in classification under Central Enactments.

The respondent countered by stating that the assessment was based on the petitioner's declaration and that the petitioner could appeal to the Appellate Commissioner instead of seeking a speaking order. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had been informed of the correct classification and had accepted it, negating the need for reliance on the regulations for finalizing provisional assessments. However, the court noted a lack of evidence of the petitioner's acceptance of the disputed classification and highlighted the inconsistent assessment of goods imported from different ports.

Ultimately, the court directed the respondent to conduct a fresh assessment within six weeks in line with the regulations, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper classification and the need for adherence to regulations in finalizing assessments, aiming for consistency and fairness in customs duties.