The Bombay High Court has held that the statement of the authorised representative was recorded and order passed by Mumbai Customs was brought to the notice of the department; yet there is no discussion in the show cause notice or the order.
The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain while remanding the matter for the denovo consideration observed that prima facie the imported goods would merit classification under chapter heading 8421.
Background
The petitioner/assessee is an importer. It imported, at Mumbai Customs, centrifuges as an apparatus to be used for machinery. It claimed classification under chapter heading 8421.
The department contended that it would merit classification under chapter heading 3926 as “other articles of plastic”.
The petitioner contended that specific heading would prevail over general.
A speaking order came to be passed holding that classification under 8421 is correct. The petitioner imported another consignment at Nhava Sheva port. The same dispute was raised.
The petitioner informed stating that the classification has been accepted by the department. However, ignoring it, show cause notice came to be issued. It was challenged in the writ petition. In the meantime, an ex-parte order came to be passed.
The issue in the petition relates to classification of the goods imported by Petitioner. In the bill of entry filed Petitioner has classified the goods under Custom Tariff Item 8421, whereas it is Department’s case that it should have been under 3926.
In an earlier consignment which was imported through Mumbai, the Department accepted by a speaking order dated 23rd November 2022 that the same goods would fall under the heading 8421 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The order was also brought to the notice of the Department, when Petitioner’s representative’s statement was recorded on 18th July 2023. Though in the show cause notice there is a reference to this statement, there is no discussion.
Conclusion
The court while disposing of the petition held that petitioner has not participated and the Adjudicating Authority not considered all documents. The order is liable to be quashed and remanded the matter back for reconsideration.
Case Title: Pall India Private Limited v/s The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.31728 OF 2023
Counsel for the Petitioner: Bharat Raichandani
Counsel for the Respondent: Jitendra Mishra
Decision Date: 10.09.2024
