SYIVAN TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an importer doing business in the capacity as a partnership firm, dealing with various items of plywood, MDF boards, laminated sheets etc. In the course of business, the petitioner sought to import Radiata Pine Short Length Off -Cut saw mill rejects under the Bill of Entry Nos. 9292863, dated 12 -2 -2013 and 9621668, dated 20 -3 -2013 in the months of February and March respectively. The material imported by the petitioner was sought to be classified by the second respondent as standard pine wood and detained the same demanding the duty fixed by the said respondent in respect of standard goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner chose to satisfy the duty demanded because of the need of the hour, the petitioner has filed Ext. PI appeal before the first respondent and that the prayer is to cause the same to be considered by the said respondent within a reasonable time. There is also another grievance that the petitioner in the course of further business imported similar item by way of Ext. P3 bill of entry dated 22 -5 -2013, wherein also similar course was pursued by the second respondent. The prayer of the petitioner is to enable the petitioner to release the goods in that transaction as well and to enable the petitioner to import the goods without any hurdles in future transactions, fixing the duty on the basis of value shown in the bill of entry. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submits, on instructions that no bill of entry is pending to be cleared at the hands of the second respondent.

(2.) ON going through the materials on record, this Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition mooted by the petitioner to have the goods cleared fixing duty based on the value shown in the Bill of Entry in the future transactions. The idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the rights and liberties of the importer in this regard is quite wrong and misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the course pursued by the second respondent, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the classification and quantification of the duty by way of appropriate proceedings as in the case of Exts. P1 and P2 appeals in respect of the disputed bills of entries mentioned above. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P1 and P2 appeals in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, at the earliest at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of.