9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) TMI 1125 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the said matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that in cases of this nature, the Petitioner ought to invoke the appellate statutory remedy. The parties ought to avail of the appellate remedy and not rush to the Court that too invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. However, in this case, the Petitioner claims to be a regular importer of the seized goods. The seized goods have been lying with the Customs Department since May 2024. The present petition is also pending for the last six months. Relegating the Petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage would cause further delays in the release of the seized goods itself. Ultimately the classification has to be decided by the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (hereinafter "HSN") classification. 4. The Petitioner made repeated representations to the Customs Department for release of the seized goods. Finally, however, vide order dated 29th August, 2024, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi provisional release of seized goods subject to furnishing of UT Bond equal to assessable value and Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty. The relevant portion of the said provisional release order reads as under:- 2. In this regard it is informed that the competent authority has approved provisional release of the seized goods imported vide Bills of Entry No. 3339114 dated 04.05.2024, 3339436 dated 04.05.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the issue of classification has to be finally decided by the Customs Department, however, for the last nine months, the goods are lying with the Customs Department resulting in financial losses to the Petitioner. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. SCC for the Customs Department submits that the seized goods are being misclassified only to avoid anti-dumping duty as the goods are being imported from China. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Hind Global Enterprises vs. The Commissioner of Customs & Anr. [W.P.(C) 10015/2017], wherein the Court has held that mere onerous conditions would not permit the Petitioners to bypass the appellate remedy available und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remedy and not rush to the Court that too invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. However, in this case, the Petitioner claims to be a regular importer of the seized goods. The seized goods have been lying with the Customs Department since May 2024. The present petition is also pending for the last six months. Relegating the Petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage would cause further delays in the release of the seized goods itself. Ultimately the classification has to be decided by the Department. 13. The Customs Department has already accepted the prayer for provisional release. The issue is only in respect of the conditions that are to be imposed. The Court has considered the total value of the goods and the amount of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
