Designco Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted. Thus, classification issue stands explicitly reserved for consideration of DGFT.
Facts- This batch of writ petitions assail the action initiated by the respondents seeking to deprive the benefits claimed and derived by the writ petitioners under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. The dispute itself emanates from the export of what the petitioners contend to be handcrafted articles of stone during the period in question and entitled to benefits under the MEIS by virtue of being classifiable under Harmonised System of Nomenclature Code 681599. The dispute appears to have arisen in the backdrop of a letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 31 May 2019 alluding to a discrepancy in the HSN Code liable to be ascribed to stone and marble handicraft products. Based on a reading of that communication of the CBIC, the respondent No. 6, the Commissioner of Customs, appears to have issued a Public Notice No. 57/2019 in terms of which it was apprised to all that stone and marble handicraft products are liable to be classified under Custom Tariff Heading 6802, subject to compliance being affected with the other conditions comprised in the various Explanatory Notes attached to that heading. It was on a purported reading of the aforesaid communications and the portend of the view taken by the CBIC that action appears to have been initiated against the petitioners. The principal allegation appears to be that the petitioners had illegally obtained benefits under the MEIS and were, therefore, liable to refund the amount of benefit claimed under that scheme. It is this action which also led to the issuance of various summons u/s. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 which are impugned before us.
