2014 (11) TMI 491 - HC - Customs

Classification of goods - whether the goods imported by the petitioner are calcite powder or precipitated calcium carbonate - Held that - Division Bench of this Court had directed the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise to decide the applications filed by the petitioners so as to determine whether it was necessary to get a re-testing done from an equipped laboratory. applications have not been decided and notices have been issued to the petitioners for finalization of the provisional assessment. Interest of justice would, therefore, require that an appropriate decision should be taken after the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise passes an order on the applications submitted by the petitioners. - Matter remanded back.

Issues:
1. Dispute over imported goods classification as 'calcite powder' or 'precipitated calcium carbonate.'
2. Petitioners challenging communication from Deputy Commissioner Customs for finalizing provisional assessment.
3. Petitioners seeking re-testing of samples by NABL accredited laboratory.
4. Division Bench directions to Commissioner Customs and Central Excise.
5. Allegation of premature notice issuance for finalizing provisional assessment.
6. Interpretation of departmental clarifications and relevant circulars.
7. Supreme Court precedent on trade notices' applicability across Customs authorities.
8. Challenge to CRCL's testing capability and report discrepancies.
9. Petitioners' contention on the necessity of deciding pending applications before finalizing assessment.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the case revolves around the classification of imported goods as 'calcite powder' or 'precipitated calcium carbonate.' The petitioners assert the former based on past acceptance by private accredited laboratories, while CRCL's reports contradicted this classification.

2. The petitioners contest a communication from the Deputy Commissioner Customs directing them to finalize provisional assessment and pay differential duty within three days, under the threat of action as per the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Seeking re-testing of samples, the petitioners submitted applications for the same, emphasizing the need for testing by an NABL accredited laboratory. The Division Bench directed the Commissioner to decide on these applications, highlighting the importance of a fair decision.

4. The Division Bench's directions emphasized the necessity for the Commissioner to make a decision on the re-testing applications, ensuring a just and unbiased resolution to the dispute over the imported goods' classification.

5. The petitioners raised concerns over premature notice issuance for finalizing provisional assessment, arguing that the pending applications should have been decided before any such action was taken.

6. Interpretation of departmental clarifications and circulars, along with reliance on a Supreme Court precedent, formed a crucial part of the legal arguments presented by the petitioners to support their contentions.

7. Citing a Supreme Court precedent on the applicability of trade notices across Customs authorities, the petitioners sought consistency in approach and decision-making processes.

8. The petitioners challenged CRCL's testing capability and highlighted discrepancies in the testing reports, questioning the authority's competence to determine the nature of the imported product accurately.

9. Emphasizing the importance of deciding pending applications before finalizing the assessment, the judgment set aside the premature notices and directed the Authority to make an appropriate decision post the Commissioner's determination on the re-testing applications.

← Previous Next →