Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Custom Duty

Madras HC: Choosing Writ Over Custom Appeal Not Sufficient Cause for Delay

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 9878
Case Name
Mitro Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) (Madras High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Mitro Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court considered a writ petition filed by a proprietary concern that imported goods from Korea through Chennai Customs Airport, declaring them as Herbal Classic Menthol, an original herbal product (charcoal filter), tobacco-free and nicotine-free sticks made of tea leaves, under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 30049011 (Chapter 30). The importer declared assessable values of Rs.8,99,640 and Rs.17,99,280 in two bills of entry dated 22.05.2023 and 25.05.2023 respectively. According to the petitioner, the imported goods were tobacco-free and nicotine-free and were correctly classifiable under Chapter 30. After obtaining a test report confirming the absence of tobacco and nicotine, the Assessing Officer nevertheless classified the goods under CTH 24029090 (Chapter 24) and passed an Order-in-Original imposing the applicable tariff and a penalty of Rs.15,000 for misdeclaration.

The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By order dated 10.07.2024, the appellate authority partly allowed the appeal by upholding the classification of the imported goods under Chapter 24, CTH 24029010, while setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Dissatisfied with the classification, the petitioner filed W.P. No.20422 of 2024 seeking release of the goods lying in the Customs Bonded Warehouse at Chennai on the ground that the departmental classification was erroneous. Subsequently, on legal advice that the pendency of the writ petition seeking provisional release would not prevent filing a statutory appeal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT with a delay of 144 days.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 20,001

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.