2014 (9) TMI 324 - HC - Customs

Benefit of Customs Notification No. 14 of 2004, dated 8 January, 200 - Classification of imported goods - Held that - As no duty demand has been quantified by the order dated 11 June, 2012, no occasion to deposit any amount of duty for the purpose of the petitioner s appeal being heard on merits by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) would arise. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order dated 9 January, 2013, nowhere records the amount of duty payable consequent to and/or in accordance with the order dated 11 June, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. This is for the reason that the amount of duty payable has yet to be quantified. In view of the above, the requirement of pre-deposit of any duty does not arise as duty demand has not yet been quantified by order dated 11 June, 2012. We are informed that the aforesaid exercise of classifying the imported goods on merit has not yet been carried out by the Customs Department. In the result, the appeal of the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) from the order dated 11 June, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is to be heard on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit of duty. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding deposit for appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 9 January, 2013, which directed the petitioner to deposit the impugned demand to entertain the appeal on merits from the order dated 11 June, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner imported goods for setting up a Waste Water Treatment Plant for M/s. Indian Glycols Ltd. under Project Import Regulations, 1986. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs found that the goods were imported for substantial expansion, not initial setting up, leading to deregistration of the project import contract. However, the order did not confirm or demand any duty amount from the petitioner, only directing assessment on merits and duty determination. As the duty amount was not quantified, the High Court held that no pre-deposit of duty was required for the appeal to be heard on merits by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The court set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and directed the appeal from the Deputy Commissioner's order to be heard on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit of duty. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.