M\/s. Priyanka Enterprises Versus The Joint Commissioner of Customs
GST
2018 (3) TMI 971 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 19
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 23-11-2017
W. P. No. 30233 of 2017 and W. P. M. P. Nos. 32925 and 32926 of 2017
GST
Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
\nFor Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
\nFor Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff Special Government Pleader
\nORDER
\nHeard Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. With the consent on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
\n2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging an order-in-original dated 07.11.2017 passed in respect of an import made by the petitioner vide Bill of entry No.3450978 dated 03.10.2017 for clearance of imported goods declared as GSL ARTEMIA BRINE SHRIMP EGGS imported from M\/s.Great Salt Lake Artemia, USA with an assessable v<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n der 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 Entry No.2311679 dated 04.07.2017 and proceeded to invoke his powers under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The respondent has re-assessed both the Bill of Entries and levied IGST @ 5%, confirmed the payment of differential duty and ordered confiscation of goods giving option to the petitioner to redeem the goods covered in Bill of Entry No.3450978 dated 03.10.2017 on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,00,000\/-. However, the respondent refrained from imposing any redemption fine on the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.2311679 dated 04.07.2017. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rt is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by issuing following directions: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Priyanka Enterprises Versus The Joint Commissioner of CustomsGST2018 (3) TMI 971 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 19MADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 23-11-2017W. P. No. 30233 of 2017 and W. P. M. P. Nos. 32925 and 32926 of 2017 GSTMr. T.S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed … Continue reading “M\/s. Priyanka Enterprises Versus The Joint Commissioner of Customs”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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 <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n1. 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 this order. 2. The petitioner is directed to pay the differential duty of Rs. 31,70,083\/- in respect of the Bill of Entry No.2311679 dated 04.07.2017 as well as the duty quantified on the live consignment covered in Bill of Entry No.3450978 dated 03.10.2017 by calculating the IGST @ 5%. On remittance of the differential duties, the respondent shall provisionally release the cargo within a period of seven days from the date of remittance for both Bills of Entry.
\n3. In respect of the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for the live consignment as demanded in the impugned order, the petitioner shall furnish a bond for the said amount and keep the bond alive till the disposal of the a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n