TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature of Writ of Certiorari, thereby quashing the Impugned Bill of Entry No. 8641639 dated 01.03.2025 assessed by Respondent No. 2 and 3 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, perverse, patently illegal and contrary to Article 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. [Annexure-A]; (ii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, thereby directing Respondent No. 2 and 3 to reassess the Bill of Entry No. 8641639 dated 01.03.2025 and consider the same as "Heat Strengthened Glass" and thereby outside the purview of levy of Countervailing Duty vide Notification No. 03/2021-Customs (CVD) dated 09.03.2021; and [Annexure-A] and [Annexure-D] Colly; (iii) In the interim, it is prayed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by letter dated 05.03.2025 reiterated the request for recall and reassessment of the Bill of Entry No. 8641639 followed by letter dated 18.03.2025. The petitioner provided Test Certificate from Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute in respect of Bill of Entry No. 7569948 and Bill of Entry No. 7572549 and contended that the petitioner has imported the similar product which is not considered as tempered/toughened glass by the said test report. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court as no action is taken upon the representations made by the petitioner to recall and reassess Bill of Entry No. 8641639. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ghosh for the petitioner submitted that the respondents authorities are adopting approbate an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des are only indicative and the product description shall prevail in all circumstances. It was therefore, submitted that as the petitioner has imported 'Solar Heat Strengthen Glass', no CVD could have been levied as per the Notification No. 3 of 2021 @ 9.71%. 4.3 It was submitted that the impugned final assessment of the Bill of Entry may be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent authority to consider the representations made by the petitioner. 4.4 It was further submitted that after the final assessment of the impugned Bill of Entry No. 8641639, the respondent authority has cleared the similar goods imported by the petitioner without levy of CVD. 4.5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gosh submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Culcutta Versus Indian Rayon And Industries Limited reported in 2008 14 SCC 228 to submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the assessee cannot take approbate and reprobate action after taking the benefit of the notification in the said case. It was therefore submitted that in the facts of the present case also, the respondent-Revenue could not have taken the U turn by levy of CVD on the goods imported by the impugned Bill of Entry considering it as a textured/tempered glass contrary to the test reports relied upon by the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the petitioner and considering the facts of the case, we are of ....