TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2014 on such terms and conditions prescribed by this Court. 3. The petitioner, being a small scale industry recognized by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Karnataka and registered on 08.11.2005, which is a proprietary concern, involved in the manufacture of animal feeds supplements and foods supplement. The petitioner entity has been conducting its business with utmost diligence and compliance of the statutory obligations cast on it. In the course of the business, it placed an order with M/s Continent Phosphorus Company Limited, Sichuan, Peoples Republic of China, for the supply of (3 MTS of L-ASCORBATE 2-PHOSPATE - 35 PCT AND 2 MTS MONO POTASSIUM PHOSPATE). The said supplier raised an invoice dated 15.10.2014, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a speaking order from the 3rd respondent to explain the views for reassessment as sought for. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the query vide letter dated 04.03.2015, enclosing materials to justify the reclassification, pursuant to the personal representations on 09.12.1014 and 25.02.2015. However, by a communication dated 25.03.2015, the 3rd respondent has rejected the demand of the petitioner for reclassification and for a speaking order. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner represented before the 2nd respondent by letter dated 27.03.2015 for reassessment of the goods and for release of the imported goods. However, there was no response. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... serious prejudice and loss to the petitioner entity. He would further submit that the goods under import are lying with CFS incurring very heavy demurrage and container detention charges. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that demand of Anti Dumping duty in terms of notification No.067/2009 on the petitioner is unsustainable and even if such a demand is made, the respondents ought to have issued a demand notice to that effect. However, without doing so, the respondents are simply holding on the goods, detriment to the petitioner entity. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing of the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht for by the petitioner under 2309 cannot be accepted. Further, the item imported is a separately chemically defined organic compound and the appropriate clarification is under Customs Tariff Heading 29362700 only and ADD is chargeable on the goods falling under the said Customs Tariff Heading. Therefore, the assessment done by the respondent is correct and as per law. Based on these, the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents has sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The issue relating to classification of items viz, whether the goods would attract Anti Dumping Duty or not, can be l....