Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 572 - HC - CustomsPre-deposit - reduction in quantum of pre-deposit - Classification of goods - hooks and eyes fastening strips - whether classified under CTH 83081010 or otherwise? - Held that - In Pioneer Corporation versus Union of India, 2016 (6) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can exercise discretion and reduce the pre-deposit in rare and deserving case, notwithstanding the amendment made under Section 35F of the Customs Act. The statute has not withdrawn or taken away the said power vested in the Writ Court, which should be exercised in rare but compelling and deserving cases, when the cause of justice requires such reduction - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Custom Tariff Heading, Challenge to assessment order, Pre-deposit requirement for appeal, Maintainability of writ petition due to alternative remedy, Reduction of pre-deposit amount, Discretion of High Court in reducing pre-deposit, Possibility of second appeal before Customs Tribunal, Expedited hearing of appeal. Classification of imported goods under Custom Tariff Heading: The petitioner imported 'hooks and eyes fastening strips' and claimed they fall under Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 83081010, while the respondents contended they fall under Chapter Heading 6212. The dispute was over the applicable customs duty amount, with the petitioner arguing for a lower duty based on their classification. The High Court noted the disagreement but did not delve into the merits of the classification. Challenge to assessment order: The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 15th November, 2017, which determined a significantly higher duty amount compared to what the petitioner believed was applicable. The High Court acknowledged the challenge and the need for the petitioner to avail of the appellate remedy by making a pre-deposit of a specified amount. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal: To challenge the assessment order, the petitioner was required to make a pre-deposit of a substantial sum, which the petitioner argued would severely impact their financial position and business operations. The High Court agreed that the initial pre-deposit amount was excessive given the petitioner's financial condition and the nature of the dispute. The Court reduced the pre-deposit amount to a more reasonable figure, allowing the appeal to proceed without undue financial burden on the petitioner. Maintainability of writ petition due to alternative remedy: The respondents questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process. While the High Court acknowledged the existence of an alternative remedy, it also recognized the need to relax the pre-deposit condition to ensure access to justice for the petitioner. Reduction of pre-deposit amount: In line with previous judgments, the High Court exercised its discretion to reduce the pre-deposit amount in this case, considering it a rare and deserving situation where justice required such intervention. By reducing the pre-deposit amount, the Court aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring the appeal process could move forward. Discretion of High Court in reducing pre-deposit: Referring to a previous case law, the High Court emphasized its authority to reduce pre-deposit amounts in exceptional cases, even in light of statutory provisions. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring access to justice and fairness in financial requirements for pursuing legal remedies. Possibility of second appeal before Customs Tribunal: The petitioner expressed concerns about a potential second appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court deemed this concern premature at the current stage and left it open for the petitioner to address if necessary in the future. Expedited hearing of appeal: The petitioner requested an expeditious hearing of the appeal before the first appellate authority. The High Court directed the petitioner to make such a request before the appellate authority, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution considering the limited questions raised and the payment involved. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, providing relief to the petitioner by reducing the pre-deposit amount and ensuring access to the appellate process while maintaining the possibility of further legal recourse if needed.
|