M. Duraiswamy ORDER
M. Duraiswamy, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected with the Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017 issued by the 4th respondent and to quash the same, insofar as the said Seizure Memo issued is without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to allow the clearance of the goods covered under Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without requiring the payment of Anti Dumping Duty under Notification dated 11.05.2017.
2. According to the petitioner, they are engaged in the manufacture of Wind Mills and parts of Wind Mills duly registered with the Excise Department and presently under the new regime of Goods and Service Tax (GST). For the purpose of manufacture of the said goods, they purchased indigenous goods as well as engaged themselves in the import of goods to be used in the manufacture of the final goods. During their course of business, they imported one consignment consisting of 5507.403 MTs of Hot Rolled Painted Steel Plates from overseas supplier Singapore in terms of Sales Contract dated 19.10.2015 and the Purchase Order dated 02.11.2015 and initially filed a Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016. Due to certain financial crises faced by them, has to clear the same at a later date. The goods stored in the licensed Warehouse were removed periodically by the petitioner by filing necessary Ex-Bond Bills of Entry. The same were assessed by the proper Officer of Customs and appropriate duty were paid.
2.1 According to the petitioner, in the usual course, they filed the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016 for the clearance of 878.395 MTs of Warehoused goods, assessed by the proper Officer of the Customs and duty paid and Out of Charge Order given for clearance of the cargo in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act. Pursuant to the Out of Charge Order, the 4th respondent detained the goods to interpret the Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.2017 claiming that the Anti Dumping Duty on the subject goods will have to be paid by taking the date of filing of the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 without considering the Warehouse Bill of Entry dated 22.01.2016, which is much prior to the coming into force of the levy of even the provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 08.08.2016.
2.2 Further according to the petitioner, the Ex-Bond Bill of Entry was assessed by the proper Officer of the Customs and Out of Charge Order was issued in terms of Section 47 of the Customs Act, thus, making the assessment final and if the Department is aggrieved over the said assessment, the only recourse available to the Department is to get the assessment reviewed or appealed in the manner known to law or to issue necessary notice under the provisions of Customs Act for demand of short levy or non-levy of duty, which was absolutely not done in the present case.
2.3 According to the petitioner, they have addressed various representations, but did not receive any positive reply. The 4th respondent issued a Seizure Memo dated 04.10.2017, claiming final Anti Dumping Duty Notification dated 11.05.2017, in terms of which the subject Ex-Bond Bill of Entry dated 31.08.2017 is liable for payment of Anti Dumping Duty. The 4th respondent alleged that the petitioner/importer had attempted to clear the goods for home consumption without payment of Anti Dumping Duty on the date of filing of Ex-Bond Bill of Entry by not showing the Notification, which was claimed as a mis-declaration and is liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act ........