CASCADE SYSTEMS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER M/s. Cascade Systems is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-C an intimation dated 18. 8. 2003 issued by the Respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER is engaged in the business of import and sale of computer peripherals. In the month of September 1998, petitioner had imported processors (integrated circuits) and got them cleared by customs duty as applicable to integrated circuits falling under Chapter Heading 8542. 19 of the Customs Act. Additional Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore issued a notice dated 11. 1. 1999 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why customs duty amounting to 3,42,950. 00 is not to be demanded from him as the goods imported are populated circuit boards classifiable under Chapter Heading 8473. 30 of the Customs Tariff Act. Petitioner requested the Additional commissioner to adjourn personal hearing from 23. 10. 2001 to the first week of November 2001. However, the Additional Commissioner, ignoring the said communication, passed an order on 31. 10. 2001, Aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A passed by the Additional Commissioner of customs, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. He rejected the appeal in terms of Annexure-B dated 16. 7. 2003. Petitioner states that an appeal lies against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to the Tribunal. It has to be filed within three months from the receipt of the order in terms of the statute. Petitioner states that he had time to file an appeal to CEGAT ("tribunal" for short) upto 19. 10. 2003 against the order dated 16. 7. 2003, and he says that in the meanwhile a notice has been issued by the respondent demanding duty from the petitioner. Petitioner states that no coercive recovery can be undertaken in the light of a remedy available to him by way of an appeal to the Tribunal. His further submission is that until the appeal time is over, no proceedings can be taken by way of recovery by the Department. With these facts and grounds, petitioner wants Annexure-C the recovery proceedings to be set aside by this Court.

(3.) RESPONDENT has entered appearance through Shri P. S. Dinesh Kumar, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Central Government. They have filed a statement of objection objecting to the grant of prayers made in this petition. They have also filed a subsequent circular bearing No. 396/29/98-CX dated 2. 6. 1998.