The Delhi High Court recently ruled that provisional clearance of goods shall be permitted where goods of identical description imported by other importers are cleared, and non-clearance of one importer’s consignment while clearing other identical consignments amounts to discrimination. The Court therefore permitted provisional release of the consignments subject to payment of applicable Customs Duty and other charges.
While pointing out that the clearing of consignments has to be consistent and uniform across the country, the Court opined that the Ministry of Steel and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) ought to take a policy-level decision as to the clearance of such consignments and the requirement of BIS certification or not.
Accordingly, the Court desired that the CBIC should hold a meeting with the Ministry of Steel, BIS, DRI, and at least 4 representatives of the Petitioner’s importers in these cases and place an affidavit on record on its stand as to whether these consignments ought to be released or not, and if so, on what grounds. The Court also opined that the DRI, CBIC, BIS, and the Ministry of Steel shall file an affidavit in respect of the actual correct classification of the goods in question.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that the rationale behind the seizure is that the petitioners have changed the Customs Tariff Heading under which the subject goods are being imported into India. The Bench noted that the DRI had alleged that the Petitioners are indulging in wrong classification only to avoid BIS certification, even though the said classification requires payment of higher duty.
The Bench, however, emphasized that clearing the consignments of one importer and non-clearance of others would be discriminatory, and detaining the consignments for a long period would result in substantial demurrage to the Petitioners, even when it was alleged by the DRI that the Petitioners are choosing to pay higher duty only to avoid obtaining BIS certification.
Briefly, in this case, the Petitioners imported consignments declared as “Designer and Decorative Coil for Wall Panel” classified under CTH 73269060 through Inland Container Depot, Dadri, which were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging misclassification and contending that the goods fall under CTH 72193520, which requires mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification before import.
The Petitioners contended that identical goods have been cleared at various other ports without BIS certification and without objection from the Steel Import Monitoring System. Pleading that the seizure led to substantial demurrage, the Petitioners sought the setting aside of seizure memos and the provisional release of goods.
Appearances:
Advocates Govind Krishna Dixit, Shubhankar Jha, Anasua Chakravarti, and Amrita, for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocates Avtaar Singh Deol, Nitinjya Chaudhry, Rahul Mourya, Kashish Chopra, Vidhi Gupta, Kultar Chandel, Suruchi Mittal, for the Respondent/ Revenue
