Delhi High Court
M/S. Aquamall Water Solutions ... vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 27 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5462/2015
M/S. AQUAMALL WATER SOLUTIONS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali
Manish and Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocates
versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(IMPORT) ICD, TUGHLAKABAD AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Sumit
Gaur, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 27.05.2015
1. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Mr. Nijhawan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. In view of the order that I propose to pass, at this stage, no
counter affidavit is required to be filed.
4. It is the petitioner's case that it manufactures Reverse Osmosis
Water Purifier, for households. The petitioner avers that for this
purpose, it has from time to time imported Reverse Osmosis (RO)
membrane element for household type filters.
4.1 The petitioner further avers that import of RO membrane filter
has taken place between 17.03.2012 and 11.07.2014.
4.2 The petitioner's case, however, is confined to 7 bills of entries
W.P.(C) 5462/2015 page 1 of 3
pursuant to which imports were made during the period spanning
between 10.07.2014 and 12.10.2014.
4.3 The petitioner claims that, at that stage Counter Veiling Duty
(CVD) was paid; albeit mistakenly at the rate of 10%. The assertion
of the petitioner, is that, a notification dated 11.07.2014 had been
issued by the respondents, whereby the CVD, on RO membrane, for
household type filters, had been reduced to 6%.
4.4 The petitioner, in these circumstances, made a representation to
the respondents for reassessment based on the existing documents
and, the aforementioned notification.
4.5 The first representation in this behalf, according to the
petitioner, was made on 27.01.2015, followed by another
representation dated 27.01.2015 which, representation was, however,
filed with the respondents on 10.02.2015.
4.6 The petitioner claims that both representations have not been
responded to by the respondents.
4.7 Furthermore, in support of the submission, the learned counsel
for the petitioner relies upon an order of the Division Bench, dated
06.02.2015, passed in WP(C) 3764/2014, titled : Mohit Overseas Vs.
Commissioner of Customs and Anr.
4.8 The petitioner, in these circumstances, seeks a direction for
reassessment of the aforementioned 7 bills of entries.
5. Having regard to the stand of the petitioner, I am inclined to
direct the respondents to dispose of the representations of the
petitioners and, to further direct that, while doing so, respondents will
W.P.(C) 5462/2015 page 2 of 3
have regard to the order of the Division Bench dated 06.02.2015,
passed in Mohit Overseas's case. It is ordered accordingly.
5.1 The needful will be done by the respondents as expeditiously as
possible though, not later than eight weeks from today.
6. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition
is disposed of.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 27, 2015
yg
W.P.(C) 5462/2015 page 3 of 3
