TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt to rule on a classification dispute. On facts, it is admitted that the petitioner has been clearing the very same LCD panels by classifying the same under CTH 8529 for over three years. The question would be as to whether the petitioner at this juncture can claim that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH9013. The matter clearly involves appreciation of the factual position, what is the nature of the product imported by the petitioner etc. Undoubtedly, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by a Writ Court. Petition dismissed being not maintainable. - Writ Petition No.5532 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.6838 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthasarathy for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CC, New Delhi, [2015 (319) 565 (SC)] and the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs (Noida) [2015 (326) ELT 161 (Tri-Del); Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs (Air), [2016 (337) ELT 87 (Tri-Chennai)]. Further, it is submitted that the mere fact that the petitioner was classifying the product under CTH8529, prior to 05.01.2018, cannot be the reason for the insistence on classification of the product under CTH 8529. Further, it is submitted that appeal remedy available is not efficacious and if the petitioner is to challenge the reassessment, a sizeable amount equivalent to 7.5% of the disputed duty has to be paid, which is an onerous conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Customs (Appeals) and that the remedy is effective and efficacious. It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Noida), (supra), has been appealed against and the Special Leave Petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6518-6538 of 2016 and hence, the order has not attained finality. 4. In so far as the Secure Meters (supra), the same is factually different from the present case and has no application to the facts of the present case. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has apparently made it clear that the change of stand to classify the imported goods now under CTH9013 from the earlier classification unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an increase in tariff at 15% vide Financial Bill 2018 and only to avoid this duty, the present classification has been changed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the headings which provide most specific description shall be prepared over the heading providing general description and in the present case, the imported goods are classifiable under CTH8529, as the LCDs are imported for the purpose of manufacture of colour televisions and the petitioner for past three years has been classifying the product, as under CTH 8529. It is further submitted that the reliance placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rolex Rings Pvt., Ltd vs. UOI., [2018-VIL-28-Guj-Cu], is not sustainable, as the facts of the said case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 8. Firstly it has to be pointed out that since the issue involved with regard to the classification of the product imported, the Division Bench of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the orders of the CESTAT, is denude of powers to decide a classification dispute, as appeal lies to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction from this Court to rule on a classification dispute. 9. The issue as to whether the decision in Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Limited (supra), or Secure Meters (supra), would apply to the petitioner's case is a factual issue, which requires interpretation of the product imported by the petitioner. On facts, it is admitted that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y would be futile and the condition to deposit a sizeable amount with the department is an onerous condition. With great respect to the views expressed in Rolex Rings Pvt., Ltd(supra), this Court cannot apply the decision to the case on hand, as the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Limited (supra), whereas the case before the High Court of Gujarat arose out of a decision in the assessee's own case, which was decided by the Tribunal. 11. I have my reservation in accepting the view of the High Court of Gujarat, especially when, the Court had no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, as an appeal was maintainable against the said or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
