9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 417 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of goods for re-export - Rejection of declared classification of the goods classified under CTH 25182090 - Aluminum Dross - rejection of declared value - re-determination of value - penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - All contentions of the Petitioner and the Respondents regarding the proposed penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, are kept open. The concerned Respondent must not delay the implementation of the O-I-O dated 2 August 2024 because of the communication/notice dated 15 October 2024 since it was admitted that this issue was independent.
Issues:
Petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash a letter issued by Respondent No. 5 and release goods for re-export, rejection of declared classification and value of goods, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties on importer, partner, and customs broker, payment and re-export conditions, clarification on independent issue raised in a communication dated 15 October 2024, delay in implementation due to the communication, proposed penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a letter issued by Respondent No. 5 and to release goods for re-export. The Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 2 August 2024 rejected the declared classification and value of the goods, ordered reassessment, and imposed penalties on the importer, partner, and customs broker under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The O-I-O also provided for confiscation of goods with an option for redemption and re-export within 90 days. The petitioner agreed to pay the amounts specified in the O-I-O within 15 days for the release and re-export of goods. Upon payment, the concerned Respondent was directed to immediately release the goods for re-export within 15 days. The court clarified that the 90-day time limit for re-export mentioned in the O-I-O would not apply due to delays caused by the Respondent. An independent issue raised in a communication dated 15 October 2024 was separated from the implementation of the O-I-O. The court emphasized that the Respondent should not delay the O-I-O implementation due to the communication. While the court made the Rule absolute without any cost order, it kept all contentions regarding proposed penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, open. The Respondent was instructed not to delay the O-I-O implementation due to the independent issue raised in the communication. All parties were directed to act based on the court's order for the release and re-export of the goods.
|
