HLG Trading Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court permitted HLG Trading to withdraw from the writ remedy and challenge the customs speaking order before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), since an effective statutory appellate remedy was available. The petitioner had sought quashing of Speaking Order No. 83925/2021 dated 15 April 2021 and a direction to reassess the relevant bills of entry by extending the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9 July 2004, as amended, against the levy of countervailing duty. During the hearing, however, the petitioner confined its request to permission to pursue the statutory appeal and exclusion of the period for which the writ petition remained pending before the High Court. Considering this limited request, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). It further directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending would stand excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal. The High Court did not examine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to the exemption notification, reassessment or consequential refund and expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Facts of the Case
HLG Trading challenged Speaking Order No. 83925/2021 dated 15 April 2021 passed by the second respondent. The petitioner sought reassessment of the relevant bills of entry by claiming the benefit of [Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9 July 2004](https://taxguru.in/excise-duty/notification-no-30-2004-ce-dated-09-07-2004-conditional-notification.html), as amended, against the levy of countervailing duty. It also sought quantification of the resulting amount to enable it to claim a refund.
Issue Before the High Court
The immediate issue was whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the effective statutory appellate remedy available before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and whether the time spent prosecuting the writ petition should be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing that appeal.
Petitioner’s Submission
The petitioner submitted that an effective appeal remedy was available before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). It therefore requested the High Court not to examine the merits of the customs dispute and instead grant liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
