2019 (5) TMI 1296 - HC - Customs

Retention of goods at Port - inaction on the part of revenue to classify the goods - it was alleged that the import is not accompanied by essential documents required for this product - Sl.No.36 of official gazette notification dated 13.08.2018 - sum and substance of the grievance is continuous inaction of the respondent in dealing with Exts.P5 and P11 bills of entries submitted by the importers/petitioners - HELD THAT - Though some attempt has been made to convince this Court with the respective versions of the parties, this Court is not persuaded to examine these submissions, however is of the view that the respondent could be directed to complete classification of goods covered by Exts.P5 and P11, within three months from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the inaction of the respondent in dealing with imported goods.
2. Classification of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Compliance with official gazette notification requirements.
4. Opportunity of hearing for the petitioner in case of classification dispute.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the respondent's inaction in dealing with goods imported through bills of entries, claiming it amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner emphasized that similar goods had been imported previously without issues. The respondent, however, justified the delay based on a gazette notification from 2018, stating that the imported goods lacked necessary documents. The court directed the respondent to complete the classification of goods within three months.

2. The dispute revolved around the classification of goods imported by the petitioner. The petitioner argued for a prompt decision on the classification to understand their position and seek legal remedies if needed. The respondent, on the other hand, insisted on compliance with the official gazette notification requirements before taking any action. The court ordered the respondent to classify the goods within three weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing.

3. The respondent's contention was based on the official gazette notification from 2018, specifying the requirements for imported goods falling under a particular item. The petitioner urged for a swift decision based on proper classification rather than assumptions. The court emphasized the importance of completing the classification process promptly to resolve the ongoing inaction issue.

4. The judgment highlighted the need for the respondent to classify the goods covered by the bills of entries submitted by the petitioner within a specific timeframe. It stressed the significance of providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing before passing the classification order. The court's decision aimed to address the continuous inaction issue and ensure timely resolution through proper classification and communication of decisions to the concerned parties.