Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S. Spraytec India Ltd vs Additional Director General, ... on 23 March, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna

                          $~31
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 4629/2022
                                 CM APPL.13928/2022 (for interim relief)

                                 M/S. SPRAYTEC INDIA LTD                   ..... Petitioner
                                           Represented by: Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish,
                                                           Advocate with Mr. Priyadarshi
                                                           Manish, Advocate.
                                                versus

                                 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF
                                 REVENUE INTELLIGENCE & ORS.             ..... Respondent
                                          Represented by: Mr. Aditya Singla, Senior
                                                          Standing Counsel with
                                                          Mr. Yatharth Singh, Advocate.

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

                                              ORDER

% 23.03.2022

1. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the investigation contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 200 Canon India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, as also an order of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings dated 5th October, 2021 in favour of the petitioner holding that the imported goods merit classification under heading 8424 in the light of Rule 1 and 6 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of Import Tariff and specifically under subheading 84248990, which was the classification under which the petitioner was importing goods, the petitioner challenges the continued investigation by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the summons to the petitioner was first issued on 21st January, 2019 pursuant whereto the Authorized Representative/ Director of the petitioner joined the investigation, without prejudice to his contention that the said summons were in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Private Limited (supra). Thereafter respondents did not issue summons for some time and in the meantime order of Advance Rulings, as noted above, was passed in favour of the petitioner, however, now again summons have been issued by the Officer of the respondents, who is not competent to issue summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

3. Notice. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents states that he has already written to the Department for necessary instructions in this regard.

5. At request, renotify on 31st March, 2022.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MARCH 23, 2022 vk Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA W.P.(C) 4629/2022 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:25.03.2022 18:01:17