2016 (8) TMI 1320 - HC - Customs

High Court directs duty assessment on imported goods, emphasizes accurate declarations.

The Madras High Court, in a judgment by Mr. T.S.Sivagnanam, J., addressed discrepancies in a writ petition involving incorrect details and suppression of ... Assessment to duty after departmental examination - valuation and classification of imported goods - re-export on objection by trade mark proprietor - judicial direction for departmental quantificationRe-export on objection by trade mark proprietor - Writ petition insofar as it related to certain branded shoes and branded empty shoe boxes was dismissed and those items were directed for re-export following objections by brand owners. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner sought clearance for items including branded shoes and empty shoe boxes bearing 'Nike' and shoes bearing 'Adidas'. The respondents produced written instructions showing that M/s. Nike International Limited and M/s. Adidas A.G. had raised objections. The petitioner elected re-export for the items in question. In view of the objections by the trade mark proprietors and the petitioner's own request for re-export, the court dismissed the writ petition insofar as it related to those specified items.Writ petition dismissed in respect of items at Serial Nos.3, 7, 8 and 9; those items to be re-exported.Assessment to duty after departmental examination - valuation and classification of imported goods - judicial direction for departmental quantification - Remaining imported items found to have discrepancies in declaration were directed to be assessed to duty by the respondents and the petitioner to be informed of the assessment. - HELD THAT: - On examination by the SIIB, discrepancies were found between the goods declared in the Bill of Entry and the actual consignment for items such as glass crystal beads, toy balls, wooden sticks, assorted ladies garments and baby chairs. The respondents stated that similar products imported by other importers have already been examined and value fixed. The court did not decide the quantum or classification itself; instead it directed the respondents to carry out assessment to duty and to intimate the petitioner, observing that the departmental practice of having examined similar consignments and fixed value is relevant to the exercise. The direction is administrative and requires the department to assess and notify the petitioner within the stipulated period.Respondents directed to assess the items at Serial Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 to duty and intimate the petitioner within two weeks.Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed: petition dismissed insofar as it concerned specified branded items which are to be re-exported; remaining items directed to be assessed to duty by the departmental officers and the petitioner to be informed within two weeks; no costs. Issues:1. Allegations of incorrect details and suppression of goods in the Bill of Entry.2. Discrepancies found in the consignment during investigation.3. Request for re-export of certain items due to objections raised by trademark holders.4. Direction to assess duty on specific items and comply within a specified timeframe.Analysis:The judgment by Mr. T.S.Sivagnanam, J. of the Madras High Court addresses multiple issues raised in the writ petition. The petitioner, a regular importer, was accused of consistently filing Bills of Entry with incorrect details or suppressing goods imported. The Department's written instruction revealed discrepancies in the current Bill of Entry, including undeclared Glass Crystal Beeds, incorrect quantity declarations for Smile Balls and Wooden Sticks, and incomplete declarations for Baby Chairs and other items. The Department's investigation highlighted these discrepancies, leading to the need for further action.Regarding specific items like Cotton Shoes, Empty Shoe Boxes, and Shoes with brand names 'Nike' and 'Adidas,' objections from trademark holders prompted the petitioner to seek re-export of these items. Consequently, the writ petition concerning these items was dismissed. However, for other items like Glass Crystal Beeds, Smile Balls, Wooden Sticks, Assorted Ladies Garments, and Baby Chairs, the respondents were directed to assess duty and inform the petitioner promptly. This direction was necessary as similar imported products had already been evaluated, valued, and cleared for other importers. The court mandated compliance with this directive within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed accordingly. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate declarations in Bills of Entry, the consequences of discrepancies in importation, and the need for timely duty assessment and compliance with legal directives in such cases.