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>Customs Authorities' Classification Decision Upheld</h1> <h3>STORES SUPPLY (INDIA) AGENCY Versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> STORES SUPPLY (INDIA) AGENCY Versus ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 583 (Cal.) Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975In this judgment, the petitioner, a steel items dealer, imported stainless steel sheet cuttings under a license. The Customs Authorities intended to levy a 225% duty on the goods, but the petitioner argued for a 45% duty classification under sub-heading No. (1) of Heading 73.15. The petitioner cited discrepancies in the description of the goods and sought release based on similar Delhi High Court orders. However, the Court held that the Customs Authorities are responsible for classifying imported goods. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that if a reasonable construction favoring revenue is adopted, the Court cannot interfere. Since no apparent mistake or perversity was alleged against the Customs Authorities, the Court declined to intervene, discharged the rule, and vacated the interim order.The Court highlighted that the Customs Authorities are the appropriate entities to determine the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff. The judgment referenced a previous case where it was established that the Authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the tariff head under which a commodity falls. The Court reiterated that interference is only warranted if the Authorities adopt a construction that no reasonable person could accept, emphasizing that the Court cannot intervene if one of the reasonable constructions favors revenue. As there was no evident mistake or perversity alleged against the Customs Authorities in this case, the Court refused to interfere with their determination and discharged the rule while vacating the interim order.Additionally, the Court addressed the release of goods at the interim stage based on a bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. Upon the petitioner's request, the Court granted the Customs Authorities the liberty to encash the bank guarantee and reduce the security. This decision allowed the Authorities to take necessary steps regarding the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner for the release of the goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
