M S Ciena Communications India Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Import & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that the mere pendency of the appeal would not entail the department to insist on provisional assessment of the goods. Thus, petitioner shall be entitled to seek release of goods as per the CESTAT order, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in the pending Appeal.
Facts- The Petitioner is a company providing after sales support services of telecommunication networking equipment. It had imported certain goods which were subject matter of an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Mumbai zone on the ground that there was misclassification of the goods. It is the Petitioner’s grievance that despite the issue of classification having been settled in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue Department is insisting on goods being released provisionally subject to Petitioner’s furnishing of bonds.
The case of the Petitioner was that it was entitled to exemption under Notification No.24/2005 dated 1st March, 2005 but the DRI opined otherwise.
Conclusion- Held that the mere pendency of the appeal would not entail the department to insist on provisional assessment of the goods. Since there is no stay of the order of CESTAT, the goods would have to be released in terms of the CESTAT order dated 18th December 2023 as per the classification as directed by the CESTAT i.e., CTH 851770. Needless to add, the release of the goods shall be subject to the final judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending Civil Appeal and the consequences thereof, if any, which shall be fastened on the parties. Accordingly, the Petitioner shall be entitled to seek release of goods as per the CESTAT order, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in the pending Appeal and any directions that may be issued therein, which would have to be complied with.
