9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1104 - HC - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Low Noise Block Down Converter - classified as Low Noise Block Down Converter under CTH 85437099 or as Universal Single KU Low Noise Booster under CTH 85299090? - Held that - this Court is of the view that in respect of the identical import, the Commissioner Appeals , in the Order-in-Appeal No.580/2013 dated 04.04.2013, has accepted the petitioner s classification of the goods as CTH 85437099. That apart, Circular No.13/2013 dated 05.04.2013, also prima facie appears to be fully in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been able to establish a prima facie case, which also would lien in favor of the petitioner while considering the aspect of balance of convenience. Stay of order-in-original dated 05.11.2013 sought for - Held that - The three cardinal principles which have to be satisfied by the petitioner for being entitled to the grant of stay are 1 prima facie case; 2 balance of convenience; and 3 irreparable hardship. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] in stay petitions regarding classification of imported goods. Analysis: The petitioner contested the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs [Appeals] in stay petitions related to appeals against the order-in-original concerning the classification of imported goods. The petitioner declared the goods as Low Noise Block Down Converter in one case and as Universal Single KU Low Noise Booster in another. However, the Adjudicating Authority classified the goods differently, leading to a demand for a differential duty. The Commissioner [Appeals] required the petitioner to pre-deposit the entire amount to obtain a stay of the order. The petitioner argued that a similar import had been classified in their favor previously and relied on a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to support their case. In the first writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner [Appeals] regarding the classification of goods in the appeal against the order-in-original. The petitioner argued that they had established a prima facie case based on a previous order in their favor and a supportive circular. The respondents contended that the Commissioner [Appeals] had considered the facts and exercised discretion correctly. The court noted that the petitioner had satisfied the conditions for a stay, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship. The court found that the petitioner had indeed established a prima facie case, as evidenced by a previous order in their favor and a supportive circular. The court also considered the aspect of irreparable hardship, noting that the issue was covered by the circular and the previous order. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to a stay without any conditions to contest the appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals]. The writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and granting a stay of the order-in-original until the appeals were heard and disposed of by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was directed to expedite the disposal of the appeals within three months. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
