2018 (5) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of import and manufacture of medical equipments and sale of such equipments in India. The petitioner company had imported medical equipment known as Hemato Analyser with standard accessories and filed five bills of entry before the second respondent dated 10.03.2005, 24.03.2005, 06.08.2005, 05.10.2005 and 21.10.2005. The second respondent has assessed the bills of entry demanding additional duty of customs at 4% in terms of Notification No.19/2005-Cus. Dated 01.03.2005 issued by the first respondent. 3.The petitioner further states that the petitioner company has imported same goods Hemato Analyser covered under the above mentioned five....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal duty of customs at 4% in terms of customs Notification No.19/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. 6.The petitioner further states that the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, providing for levy of basic customs duty is under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods falling under Customs Tariff Sub-heading 90278090 are eligible for duty free clearance and therefore, no customs duty is payable. Hence, there is no need to mention the goods in Notification No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence the petitioner has filed these writ petitions for the aforesaid relief. 7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has not challeng....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the goods in question. 10.Heard both sides. 11.In the present case, the goods imported by the petitioner were detained by the customs department on the ground of non-payment of additional duty imposed in the above said Notification. The prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the reason that after detention of goods by the customs department, if the petitioner disputes the imposition of additional duty on the imported goods, the imposition of additional duty on the imported goods is sustainable or not can be decided on after the customs department initiate appropriate proceeding for adjudication and after hearing the same. However, till date there is no adjudication proceedings initiated in the present case. Henc....