AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Notice in this petition was issued on 13-1-2015. The issue raised in the petition is rather narrow. The petitioner''s claim that the goods imported are classified as ''quilt covers''. The Customs Department, however, I am told, has taken the position that they are in the nature of ''polyester fabric''. Mr. Nijhawan, who appears for respondent No. 1 says that a counter affidavit has been filed. The counter affidavit, however, is not on record. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that the counter affidavit was filed on 13-3-2015 vide Diary No. 119907.
1.1 Mr. Aggarwala, who appears for respondent No. 2, i.e., DRI also says that a counter affidavit was filed yesterday, i.e., 16-3-2015 vide Diary No. 122723.
2.2 These counter affidavits have been filed beyond the time prescribed by this Court; therefore, they are not on record.
I may only note that the petitioner had made an assertion that the Commissioner of Customs, one, Mr. Atul Dikshit, in letter dated 11-9-2014 addressed to the Additional Director General of DRI stated that the goods in issue can only be classified as ''quilt covers''. In this behalf, reference is made to paragraph 3 of the letter dated 11-9-2014, which is appended at pages 48 to 50 of the paper book.
2.1 The learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners have firstly, illegally obtained an internal document, and secondly, have not put on record other documents, which present a contrary position. In other words, the position now taken by respondent No. 1, as noted above, is that the goods in issue are polyester fabric.
2.2 Be that as it may, the Counsels for the respondents do not disagree that if, as contended by them, the goods are classifiable as polyester fabric they would have to pass a re-assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2.3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner confines his writ petition to a direction being issued by the Court in that behalf, so that, the petitioner is able to agitate the matter further in case re-assessment order passed by respondent No. 1, is against its interest.
Accordingly, respondent No. 1 is directed to pass a re-assessment order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, with the aforesaid directions. Dasti.