9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods, namely L-ASCORBATE 2 - PHOSPATE -35 PCT, attracted Anti Dumping Duty (hereinafter referred as ADD). 3. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.15472 of2015, seeking for release of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry dated 12.11.2014 and by an order dated 18.08.2015, it was held as follows: 9. The issue relating to classification of items viz., whether the goods would attract Anti Dumping Duty or not can be looked into by the authority concerned by adopting proper adjudication process followed by a speaking order, which is yet to be made. Hence, such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this meanwhile, for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had deposited 50% of the ADD, through a Challan No.3923 "under protest", pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.08.2015. Hence, when the payment of ADD was made "under protest" on the directions of this Court and the petitioner has all along been contending that no ADD is payable by them, the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation, cannot be sustained. It is his further contention that when the assessment group passed a speaking Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2015, holding that ADD is not leviable on the subject goods and that the petitioner is entitled for a consequential relief, the duty already paid and collected from the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re leviable to ADD and the consequent refusal for clearance of the goods covered under the Bill of Entry, the petitioner had approached this Court and by an order passed in W.P.No.15472 of 2015, the respondent was directed to complete the adjudication processed and issue a speaking order in connection with the issue as to whether ADD would be attracted for the classification of the subject goods. There was a further condition that the petitioner should pay 50% of the ADD for the purpose of release of goods and the balance amount should be secured by a bond. 11. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-2) had passed a speaking Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2015, concluding that ADD was not leviable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition. However, without any reasoning or reference to the directions of this Court in the Writ Petition or the findings of his higher authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, in the Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2015, the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic manner. As a matter of fact, the second respondent had no other opinion, but to comply with the request of the petitioner for refund, in view of the Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. As such, both the reasonings that the application for refund is time barred and that the payment was not made "under protest", cannot be sustained. 13. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would rely on certain r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
