9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riety thereof, quash and set aside the Order-in-Original bearing No. 299/ 2024-25/ Commr/NS-IV/ CAC/ JNCH dated 18.02.2025 (Exhibit A); (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the papers and proceedings, leading to the issuance of the approval for extension of adjudication granted by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 10.01.2024 and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereof, quash and set aside the approval for extension of adjudication granted by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on 10.01.2024; (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents, their servants, agents, subordinates and officers to assess the imports of the said product and permit clearance thereof for home consumption on payment of duty under Chapter 31". 4. Prayer clause (a) is to set aside the order dated 18th February, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 confirming the differential duty amount of Rs. 13,83,66,431/- u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bruary 2025. As far as the impugned order is concerned, between January 2018 to November 2022, the Petitioner imported multiple consignments of the said SEAWEED EXTRACT and filed Bills of Entry classifying the same under CTH 3101. 10. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 1st March 2023 was issued by Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, JNCH alleging misclassification of the said SEAWEED EXTRACT and demanding Rs.13.83 Crores as differential duty under Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Show Cause Notice dated 1st March 2023 was issued to the Petitioner on the basis of Analytics Report - 24/2022-23 dated 15th September, 2022 issued by the Additional Director General, DGRAM - NCTC, Mumbai. This Analytics Report has not been provided to the Petitioner. 11. Be that as it may, the Petitioner had replied to the Show Cause Notice dated 1st March 2023 on 21st May 2023 and on 28th January 2025, the personal hearing was attended by the Authorized Representative of the Petitioner as well as their Advocate, when they reiterated their submissions and also highlighted the order dated 30th April 2019 which had classified the said Product under CTH 3101 and was accepted by the Committee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 3 supports the findings in the order and submits that no interference is called for by this Court. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. We find that the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. One of the documents relied upon to justify the issuance of the Show Cause Notice was the Analytics Report 24/2022-23 dated 15th September 2022 issued by the Additional Director General, DGRAM, NCTC, Mumbai on the issue of misclassification of Seaweed under CTH 3101 0010 and 3101 0099. Admittedly, this Analytic Report has not been provided to the Petitioner before the passing of the impugned order and which forms the basis for issuing the Show Cause Notice. On this ground alone, we would be justified in setting aside the impugned order. 15. However, the matter does not stop here. As narrated form the facts above, the very same goods of the Petitioner have been classified under CTH 3101, by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), JNCH (vide his order dated 30th April 2019) and the said order has been duly reviewed and accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regulatory roles (polyamines), oligosachharins, salicylates, jasmonates, sterols, brassinosteroids, dehydrodiconiferly alcohol glycosides, turgorins, jasmonates, unreald natural stimulators and inhibitor) as well as myoinositol as mentioned in CBIC Circular No. 1022/10/2016-CX dated 06.04.2016. (emphasis supplied) 17. From the reproduction above, the Testing Authority has in fact answered a query, which is quite telling. One query raised by the Department was whether the goods of the Petitioner were an Organic Fertilizer, and which was answered in the affirmative. This Test Report also finds no mention in the impugned order which is another reason why we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 18. For all these reasons, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and would have to be set aside. We, hereby accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 18th February 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for giving a De Novo hearing to the Petitioner [after supplying the documents referred to in the SCN] and thereafter pass a reasoned order. We direct that the Adjudicating Authority shall also take into consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
