TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... importing certain materials from various countries, including yeast extract, Egyptian Basil, Soy Sauce Powder etc. The aforementioned materials are being imported from various countries and the duty accordingly is placed as per the notified Customs Act, and the items defined therein. As per the averments, petitioner classified the yeast extract as IS2102. 2. The question involved in the present writ petition is whether the customs authorities are empowered to differ the classification as sought by the petitioner for the purpose of charging of the higher duty. 3. The petitioner vide various invoices imported yeast extract, Glutamate, Egyptian Basil, Soy Sauce etc. on different dates through various bill of entries, the details of whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficate of original Phytosanitary etc. When the goods reached the destination, the bills of lading were submitted on 3rd & 17th December 2019 and 15th and 21st January 2020. Despite the submission thereof, bill of entry, the goods were not released owing to the classification by the Customs bringing under item No.2106 having a higher rate of duty. In the meantime, petitioner to their shock and surprise, received a summons dated 20.12.2019 from the office of the Director, Revenue Intelligence, purportedly under Section 108 of the Customs Act. It is in that background of the matter, customs authorities did not release the goods despite the fact that the petitioner was willing to deposit the higher rate of duty as acceptable under item No.21069....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the petitioner." 7. However, during the interregnum, petitioner was compelled to move I.A Nos. 2 and 3 of 2020. In I.A No.2/20, prayer was for stay of the summons of the petitioner and I.A.No.3/20 was for permission to place on record additional documents. The DRI officers do not have any territorial jurisdiction to interdict the release of the goods by commanding customs officials without obtaining the No Objection Certificate, as the goods have been imported and lying in custody of the customs officials at Kochi. Petitioner though was willing to pay the higher rate of duty and also reserved right to avail and utilise IGST credit at a later point of time with a liberty to raise the claim of refund. The fact of the matter is that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. No challenge has been made to the jurisdiction of the DRI officials, by drawing the attention of this Court, that the writ petition is based on a different cause of action, one sought to attempted to be joined during the pendency. By reading out the provisions of Section 108 in support of the contentions, he relied upon two judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others 2008(3) SCC 305 and Union of India Vs. Rajnish Kumar Tuli 2017(355) ELT 492 (S.C.). Relying on the relevant paragraphs of the judgments, it is submitted that the power of the DRI officials as per the provisions of Section 108 cannot be interdicted and quashed as has been sought before this Court. The Customs Act does not con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in and simple reading of the prayer as extracted above as well as the prayer for stay of the presence/summoning of the Managing Director by the officers of the DRI cannot be conjoined in one writ petition. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 108 only deals with recording of the statements, nothing beyond. Any apprehension can be invoked when the entire action initiated in law except that DRI officers of New Delhi do not have the territorial jurisdiction. I am afraid the aforementioned argument would not have any force to stand. In support of the aforementioned submission, I rely upon the judgment dated 17.10.2019 rendered in W.P. (C).No.4649/2019. I would refrain myself from commenting further as it would be taking away the legal righ....