The Delhi High Court recently issued a significant ruling. The ruling addresses the issue of misclassification of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The decision provides clarity on the scope of customs authorities’ powers and their adherence to legal procedures. Below is a summary of the key points from the judgment:
| Key Point | Details |
|---|---|
| Misclassification Not Collusion | Misclassification or incorrect classification does not inherently amount to collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts under Section 28AAA. |
| Importance of Prior Determination | Actions for recovery of duties under Section 28AAA need prior determination of collusion or related malpractices. |
| Case Background | The dispute involved exporters of handcrafted stone articles classifying goods under CTH 6815 (eligible for MEIS). Customs argued they should fall under CTH 6802 (worked monumental stone). |
| Reopening of Assessments | Customs’ effort to reopen assessments after decades was criticized, as the opportunity for such action had already lapsed. |
| MEIS Certificates | MEIS certificates are issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Customs authorities can’t challenge them without DGFT adjudication. |
| No Evidence of Wrongdoing | The court found no evidence of collusion or deceitful practices by the petitioners about the classification of goods. |
| Earlier Court Precedents | Earlier judgments confirmed that disputes over classifications should be resolved by the DGFT, not customs authorities. |
| Conclusion | The court allowed the petitions, declaring the customs actions illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. |
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces the need for customs authorities to follow established legal protocols. It also limits their power to challenge certificates issued under foreign trade regulations without proper adjudication. By upholding procedural safeguards, the ruling ensures fair treatment for exporters and importers.
This decision reminds us of the critical balance between regulatory oversight and adherence to lawful processes. This balance protects businesses from arbitrary actions by authorities.
Source : http://www.livelaw.in
Glottis Limited 
Leave a comment