TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies interim relief in imported coal misclassification case, emphasizes customs duty compliance.</h1> <h3>Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Versus Union of India</h3> Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Versus Union of India - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 483 (A. P.) Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment include the classification of imported coal, the application of customs duty exemptions, the provisional assessment of duty, the alleged misclassification of coal by the petitioners, the authority of the Port Authorities to prevent removal of goods, and the petitioners' request for an interim direction to release the imported goods.Classification of Imported Coal:The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and import 'steam coal' classified under CTH-2701 1920, which is exempted from customs duty as per a government notification. The respondents allege that the coal imported by the petitioners is misclassified as 'Bituminous coal' instead of 'Steam coal', leading to duty evasion.Provisional Assessment of Duty:The petitioners claim that all Bills of Entry for importing coal were provisionally assessed, and they paid the assessed duty. However, the respondents argue that the self-assessment by the petitioners was incorrect, and the goods are liable for confiscation pending further investigation.Authority of Port Authorities:The Port Authorities are preventing the petitioners from lifting the imported coal based on instructions from the Director of Revenue Intelligence, alleging misclassification of coal and short payment of duty. The petitioners challenge this action as arbitrary and illegal.Petitioners' Request for Interim Direction:The petitioners seek a direction to allow the removal of imported goods without paying the alleged differential duty. They argue that their manufacturing process would be adversely affected if the goods are not released immediately. However, the court denies this request, citing the pending investigation and the significant amounts of duty owed by the petitioners.Decision and Conclusion:The court dismisses the petitioners' request for interim relief, stating that releasing the goods without payment of the differential duty would be against public interest. The petitioners are allowed to request the lifting of consignments from the port, which will be considered by the authorities in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate classification and duty payment in customs matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
