9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 120 - HC - CustomsPetition for release the pending balance duty drawback claim amount, entitled to the petitioner - Classification of HDPE / PP Bags, Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container (FIBC Bags) - Whether the goods exported under the classification of CETSH 6305 32 00 shall be re-classified under CETH 3923 29 90 - Held that - , the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, by adverting to another order passed by the CESTAT in the case of TPI India Ltd., vs. CCE, Mumbai II reported 2005 (5) TMI 159 - CESTAT, MUMBAI has held in favour of the petitioner stating that the Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container would fall under Chapter heading 6305 32 00. Apart from the above, the issue also has been decided by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Udyog Bhawan, classifying that Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers are covered under ITC(HS) Code 63 and not under ITC(HS) Code 39. The Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, in Circular No.42/2011-Cus., dated 22.09.2011, F.No.609/82/2011-DBK, also has settled the dispute regarding the classification of FIBC by bringing it under Chapter 63, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. - Revenue directed to issue refund within two weeks - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues:
1. Classification of goods exported under different headings. 2. Disagreement between lower authority and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. 3. Pending balance duty drawback claim amount settlement. Issue 1: Classification of goods exported under different headings The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and export of HDPE/PP Bags, Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container (FIBC Bags), and similar products, faced a challenge regarding the classification of FIBC Bags. The Excise Range Officer requested re-classification under a different heading, leading to a show cause notice for re-classification under a specific heading. The lower authority reclassified the goods and imposed a penalty, which was later overturned by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Tiruchirappalli, holding that the FIBC bags are to be classified under a different heading based on established case law and precedents. Issue 2: Disagreement between lower authority and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, supported the petitioner's classification by referring to a previous CESTAT decision and held that the FIBC falls under a specific chapter heading. The Director General of Foreign Trade also classified FIBC under a particular code. This led the High Court to conclude that the petitioner was entitled to the pending balance duty drawback claim amount, directing the 3rd respondent to settle and release the amount within a specified timeframe. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with relevant notifications and decisions. Issue 3: Pending balance duty drawback claim amount settlement The High Court, after considering all arguments and legal provisions, issued a Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to settle and release the pending balance duty drawback claim amount entitled to the petitioner for a specific period. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to official notifications and decisions while also acknowledging the possibility of the respondent department seeking recourse under applicable rules in case of success in the pending appeal before the CESTAT. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the classification dispute in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to legal provisions and established decisions. The Court's directive for the settlement of the pending duty drawback claim amount underscored the importance of timely and accurate classification of goods for duty purposes.
|
