M/S. AQUAMALL WATER SOLUTIONS LIMITED v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) ICD, TUGHLAKABAD AND ANR.

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 2015:DHC:4817 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 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