2018 (3) TMI 971 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 19 – Classification of imported goods – GSL ARTEMIA BRINE SHRIMP EGGS – petitioner sought to avail concessional duty (preferential rate of 0% IGST as against 5% IGST) by relying upon Notification No.002/2017-Cus dated 28.06.2017 in Sl.No.33 – respondent opined that the item imported by the petitioner should be classified under IGST Notification No.001/2017 Sl.No.I-21 – Held that: – Prima facie this Court is of the view that the respondent could not invoke Section 111(m) of the Customs Act as there appears to be no allegation that the goods do not correspond in respect of the value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Act. In the impugned order, the respondent has accepted that there is no dispute in the classification of the goods.
–
The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of thi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 05119911. The petitioner sought to avail concessional duty (preferential rate of 0% IGST as against 5% IGST) by relying upon Notification No.002/2017-Cus dated 28.06.2017 in Sl.No.33. The respondent opined that the item imported by the petitioner should be classified under IGST Notification No.001/2017 Sl.No.I-21 and attracts IGST @ 5%. Therefore, the respondent was of the prima facie view that the exemption claimed by the petitioner for the imported goods does not appear to be correct. Though under normal circumstances a show cause notice should have been issued, the petitioner by letter dated 12.10.2017 requested for adjudication of the case without issuing show cause notice and personal hearing. This was acceded to and the impugned order has been passed. The respondent while passing the impugned order did not restrict himself only to the life consignment covered under Bill of Entry No.3450978 but also in respect of earlier import in Bill of E
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ncture since the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai as against the impugned order but would request this Court to exercise its discretion by passing an order for release of the goods subject to conditions the Court may impose on the petitioner. This request is made for two reasons, namely, that the imported goods have a shell life of only six months and already two months have lapsed and further delay would render the product useless apart from causing other complications. The second reason is being that as of now the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai is vacant and the Commissioner of Central Excise is holding charge and there may be loss of time before the appeal is taken up for hearing. 4. Thus, considering the above submissions, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by issuing following directions: 1. The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal before the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =