2018 (5) TMI 571 - HC - Customs

Writ of Mandamus - deletion of Tariff Entry No. 902780 from the N/N. 24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - detention of goods on the ground of non-payment of additional duty imposed in the above said Notification - no adjudication taken place - Held that - The prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that after detention of goods by the customs department, if the petitioner disputes the imposition of additional duty on the imported goods, the imposition of additional duty on the imported goods is sustainable or not can be decided on after the customs department initiate appropriate proceeding for adjudication and after hearing the same. Till date there is no adjudication proceedings initiated in the present case. Hence, Mandamus cannot be issued against the respondents because, the respondents have the power to adjudicate the matter. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to imposition of additional customs duty on imported medical equipment.
2. Interpretation of customs notifications regarding levy of duty.
3. Validity of demanding additional customs duty on goods eligible for duty-free clearance.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to issue Writ of Mandamus against customs authorities.
5. Adjudication proceedings for disputes related to imposition of additional duty.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the imposition of additional customs duty on imported medical equipment, specifically the Hemato Analyser, under Notification No.19/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. The petitioner argued that the goods fell under an exemption notification, and hence, no additional duty should be levied.

Issue 2:
The dispute revolved around the interpretation of customs notifications, particularly Notification No.19/2005-Cus. and No.24/2005-Cus. issued by the first respondent on the same date. The petitioner contended that the goods imported were covered under an exemption notification, while the customs authorities insisted on levying additional duty based on Notification No.19/2005.

Issue 3:
The petitioner highlighted that the imported goods were eligible for duty-free clearance under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and thus, no customs duty should be payable. The demand for additional duty by the customs authorities was deemed unjustified by the petitioner.

Issue 4:
The court deliberated on the jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the customs authorities. It was noted that the customs department had detained the imported goods due to non-payment of additional duty, and the court opined that the imposition of duty could be challenged through adjudication proceedings initiated by the customs department.

Issue 5:
Regarding the adjudication of disputes related to the imposition of additional duty, the court emphasized that the customs department had the authority to adjudicate the matter. The court declined to grant the Writ of Mandamus sought by the petitioner at that stage, directing the petitioner to avail remedies through adjudication proceedings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions, maintaining that the petitioner's challenge to the imposition of additional duty required adjudication by the customs authorities. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue legal remedies and directed the respondents to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case in the adjudication proceedings.