9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discontinued. Even if we assume that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SVB, New Delhi dated 23rd June 2014 does not amount to a fresh SVB order and neither does it renew an earlier SVB order dated 21st February 2011, by virtue of the said circular, no EDD could have been loaded on the imports made by the Petitioner. However, in view of the fact that the Appeal before the CESTAT, Delhi is pending, we do not think it would be a fit case to entitle the Petitioner to clear their imports without in any way securing 1% EDD that is being loaded on their imports. - Petitioner will have to furnish a Bond in favour of the Respondents at the time of clearance to secure the difference between the duty demanded and the Quantum of Extra Duty Deposit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition No. 6364 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2014 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla,JJ. For the Appellants : Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b Mr. Mihir P. Deshmukh For the Respondent : Mr. P. S. Jetly JUDGMENT [Per B. P. Colabawalla J. ] Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 1. The grievance made by the Petitioner in this Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VB/ Cus/ Review/1/Pu/2007 dated 10.04.2007 From 10.02.2007 to 09.04.2010 4 OrderNo.SVB/CUS/ Review/HS/19/2010 dated 25.11.2010 (Set aside by the Hon'ble High Delhi Court From 10.04.2010 till 24.11.2013(subject to modification by superior authorities) 5 Order No.SVB/CUS/Review/HS/24/2010 dated 21.02.2011 From 21.02.2011 till 20.02.2014 6 Order of this Hon'ble High Court in WP No.2911 dated 28.03.2014 Directions to Respondent 5 to pass an appropriate order after considering submissions of the Petitioner within 3 months. 7 Order No.SVB/CUS/REVIEW/SS/07/19422 dated 23.06.2014 passed by Respondent 5 in compliance with this Hon'ble Court directions Directions to Respondent 5 to pass an appropriate order after considering submissions of the Petitioner within 3 months. 4. The said SVB orders clearly contemplated that every order shall be in force for three years from the date of its passing unless the facts undergo any change. The orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch immediately for review of this order. The imports thereafter will be assessed provisionally with EDD equivalent to 1% of the Assessable value. Para 25: This order is valid for a period of three years from the date of issue. To facilitate prompt and timely review, the Importer is requested to come forward with necessary data four months before the expiry of three year's period. If no renewal is done on expiry of three years period, the order shall stand expired and the Assessing Group may resort to provisional assessment with EDD equivalent to 1% of the Assessable value.? 5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, with a specific challenge to paragraph 21 in relation to imposition of loading, filed an Appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who by his order dated 31st October 2011 allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, SVB preferred an Appeal before the CESTAT, Delhi. The said Appeal is pending without grant of any stay against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) dated 31st October 2011. 6. Despite aforesaid, the department was insisting on 1% loading of EDD on bills of entry being fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing charged on imports made, the Petitioner produced the SVB order dated 23rd June 2014 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, New Delhi before Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and contended that in view of the said order, the Petitioner was not liable to pay the EDD of 1% on the assessment value of imported goods. Nevertheless, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 reassessed the bills of entry no.542537549 dated 11th March 2014 and 5626428 dated 27th May 2014 provisionally subject to 1% EDD. 11. Being aggrieved by these actions of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and their failure to acknowledge the SVB order dated 23rd June 2014, this Writ Petition has been filed. 12. Mr. Raichandani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the action on the part of Respondent No.4 in loading the imports with 1% EDD is ex-facie erroneous, illegal and perverse. He submitted that the said 1% EDD could not be loaded on the imports, despite a valid SVB order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, New Delhi and the action on the part of the Respondents in this regard was high-handed and arbitrary. The learned counsel submitted that despite the said SVB order, the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents submitted that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were justified in loading the imports made by the Petitioner with 1% EDD as the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31st October 2011 was not accepted by the department and the same was under challenge before CESTAT, Delhi. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner be directed to continue to pay 1% EDD and an application can be made to the CESTAT, Delhi for expediting the hearing of the Appeal filed by the Revenue. 15. With the help of the learned counsel, we have perused the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we find that the grievance made by Mr. Raichandani is justified. In the present case, admittedly, there is a SVB order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi dated 23rd June 2014. In view of the said order, at least prima facie, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were not justified in loading 1% EDD on the imports made by the Petitioner. In any event and even if we were to hold that the SVB order dated 23rd June 2014 was not a fresh order and there was no renewal of the earlier SVB order dated 21st February 2011, even then, by virtue of the Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
