9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1291 - HC - CustomsSeeking directions to pass a consolidated or separate speaking order(s) under Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act 1962 - liability of goods to be charged to Customs Duty under Customs Tariff Heading - classification of identical goods - No opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the Show Cause Notice with regard to the classification of identical goods has already been issued this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings need not be multiplied. In respect of the earlier bills of entry provisional release has already been undertaken. In respect of the above bills of entry as per the Petitioner the customs duty has been paid in terms of the classification given by the Department under protest. Accordingly let the proceedings in the Show Cause Notice dated 15th January 2025 continue. Considering the fact that the issue raised in both the proceedings are same and the goods involved are also identical the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice dated 15th January 2025 shall bind the earlier bills of entry as also the set of present bills of entry. An opportunity of personal hearing shall also be given to the Petitioner. After hearing the Petitioner the Adjudicating Authority shall take a decision in respect of the classification of the goods as to whether they would fall under CTH 85168000 and CTH 85169000. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Classification of Goods under Customs Tariff Heading Relevant legal framework and precedents: The classification of imported goods for Customs Duty purposes is governed by the Customs Tariff Act and is subject to interpretation under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) codes. Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates the passing of speaking orders in respect of Bills of Entry. The classification affects the rate of duty payable and is a matter of substantial importance in Customs law. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner contends that the goods imported are liable to duty under CTH 85169000, while the Customs Department has classified them under CTH 85168000. The Court noted that the Department has already issued a Show Cause Notice on 15th January 2025 regarding the classification of identical goods in earlier consignments. The Court emphasized that the issue in the present petitions is essentially the same as that in the Show Cause Notice, involving identical goods and classification disputes. Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner had paid Customs Duty under protest for the present Bills of Entry, and the Department submitted that there were earlier consignments of identical goods which were also classified incorrectly and provisionally released. The Show Cause Notice issued pertains to these earlier consignments. Application of law to facts: The Court reasoned that since the classification issue is already under adjudication for earlier consignments through the Show Cause Notice, multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. The adjudication of the Show Cause Notice would bind the classification for the present Bills of Entry as well. Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioner sought a speaking order under Section 17(5) for the present Bills of Entry, while the Department argued that the Petitioner had not disclosed all relevant facts and that the classification issue is pending adjudication in the Show Cause Notice. The Court accepted the Department's contention and directed that the Show Cause Notice proceedings continue and comprehensively cover all relevant Bills of Entry. Conclusions: The Court directed that the classification issue be adjudicated comprehensively in the Show Cause Notice proceedings and that the decision therein shall bind the classification of all Bills of Entry, both earlier and present. Issue 2: Obligation to Pass Speaking Orders under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 17(5) of the Customs Act requires that the Customs authorities pass speaking orders on Bills of Entry, providing reasons for classification and duty assessment. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner sought directions for the Respondents to pass consolidated or separate speaking orders in respect of the specified Bills of Entry. The Court observed that since the classification issue is pending adjudication through the Show Cause Notice, the passing of a separate speaking order for each Bill of Entry at this stage would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Key evidence and findings: The Department had provisionally released earlier consignments and issued a Show Cause Notice covering the classification dispute. The Petitioner had paid duty under protest but no speaking order had been passed yet. Application of law to facts: The Court found it appropriate that one comprehensive speaking order be passed after adjudicating the Show Cause Notice, covering all relevant Bills of Entry, rather than multiple orders. Treatment of competing arguments: The Petitioner's request for immediate speaking orders was balanced against the Department's position that the Show Cause Notice adjudication would comprehensively resolve the classification issue. Conclusions: The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority pass one comprehensive speaking order after hearing the Petitioner on the Show Cause Notice, covering all Bills of Entry. Issue 3: Consideration of Petitioner's Representations and Procedural Directions Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has jurisdiction to direct authorities to consider representations and pass reasoned orders. The principles of natural justice require that parties be given an opportunity to be heard. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner filed representations on 18th March 2024 and 24th March 2025 requesting reconsideration of classification. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not yet filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 15th January 2025. Key evidence and findings: The Court recorded the Department's submission that the Petitioner had not disclosed all facts and that the reply to the Show Cause Notice was pending. Application of law to facts: The Court permitted the Petitioner to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within thirty days, with the condition that failure to do so would close the right to file a reply. The Court also directed that the Petitioner be given an opportunity of personal hearing, with hearing notices to be sent by usual communication and also by email and mobile number provided. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court ensured procedural fairness by allowing the Petitioner to present all facts and arguments comprehensively in the reply to the Show Cause Notice rather than fragmenting the process. Conclusions: The Court directed continuation of the Show Cause Notice proceedings, allowed filing of reply within a fixed timeline, and mandated a personal hearing before final adjudication. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
