2015 (11) TMI 684 - HC - Customs

Challenge to the Show Cause Notice - Levy of anti dumping duty - import of the Ultra Slim Colour Picture Tubes in terms of the notification dated. 24th July, 2008 - Held that - If the authorities find that the separate Bill of Entry, ex bond and supporting documents have not been filed, shall permit the petitioner to submit those documents within ten days from date and shall thereafter proceed to make assessment and upon payment of duty, shall allow the clearance of the goods to the petitioner. - The petitioner now says that the summons have been issued by the Appraisal Special Investigation Branch, Customs House, Calcutta, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, requiring certain documents to be produced before him. - One could ascertain from the said summons that it has no nexus with the present Bill of Entry and is an independent action unconnected thereto. Section 108 of the Customs Act empowers the authority to requisition the document, which is separate and independent action, and in view of the specific stand of the Customs Authorities that it has no nexus with the present Bill of Entry, this Court does not intend to interfere therewith. Furthermore, the Court should not interfere at the stage of the summons, which is issued in exercise of the power conferred in the said Act unless the issuing authority is incompetent or otherwise bad in law. This Court, therefore, refrains from making any observation thereupon and it is the issuing authority to take a decision after the compliance is made by the petitioner. - Court must record that the authorities would take utmost step to resolve the dispute, so raised, in this writ petition and shall also process the Bill of Entry expeditiously in accordance with law. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on Ultra Slim Colour Picture Tubes
2. Compliance with Customs Manual for clearance of imported goods
3. Issuance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act

Comprehensive analysis:
1. The petitioner sought an order to restrain the respondent from imposing anti-dumping duty on the import of Ultra Slim Colour Picture Tubes, citing Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioner argued that as per the statutory provision, the duty should cease to have effect after five years from imposition unless extended. The respondent, representing Customs Authorities, acknowledged that the duty was not extended beyond the initial notification of July 24, 2008. The Court found that since the duty was not intended to be levied due to non-extension, the petitioner's apprehension was protected, and no further action was required on this issue.

2. The dispute regarding the clearance of the imported goods centered around compliance with the Customs Manual, 2014. The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled the requirements by submitting the necessary documents, while Customs Authorities contended otherwise. The Court noted that the Customs Manual mandates the submission of a separate Bill of Entry and ex bond for clearance. To resolve the issue, the Court directed Customs Authorities to assess the duty and decide on clearance based on compliance. If documents were found missing, the petitioner was given ten days to submit them for assessment and subsequent clearance upon duty payment.

3. The petitioner raised concerns about the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Appraisal Special Investigation Branch, alleging it was an attempt to delay clearance. The Court examined the summons and found it unrelated to the present Bill of Entry, indicating an independent action for further investigation. As the Customs Authorities confirmed the lack of nexus with the Bill of Entry, the Court refrained from interference, stating that the issuing authority must decide post-compliance. The petitioner was granted the liberty to raise defenses, including limitation, before the issuing authority for proper determination in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court emphasized resolving the disputes raised in the writ petition promptly and in accordance with the law. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with no costs imposed, ensuring that all parties involved adhere to legal procedures for clearance and investigation processes.