Case Law Details
JSW Steel Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (Orissa High Court)
In the case of JSW Steel Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, the Orissa High Court addressed the issue of arbitrary acceptance and rejection of test reports by customs authorities without providing any reasons.
The petitioner, JSW Steel Ltd, challenged the final assessment orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.05.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division, Ganjam. The petitioner argued that the orders were issued without jurisdiction and lacked proper consideration, as they were influenced by higher authorities. Additionally, the orders were passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Court’s Findings:
- The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner accepted the test report from CRCL, Pusa, New Delhi, but rejected four other test reports from SGS India Pvt. Ltd. and CRCL, Visakhapatnam without assigning any reasons.
- The court noted that the impugned orders were issued without proper jurisdiction and were influenced by higher authorities.
- The court emphasized that the rejection of test reports without providing reasons is not sustainable in law.
The Orissa High Court quashed the final assessment orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.05.2024. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner with a directive to re-evaluate and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, ensuring the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to be heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Taten, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the final assessment orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.05.2024 passed by opposite party no.1-Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division, Ganjam under Annexures-1 & 2 respectively and further to issue direction to the opposite parties not to give effect to or take any step whatsoever pursuant to aforesaid impugned final assessment orders.
4. Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Taten, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the final assessment orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.05.2024 passed by opposite party no.1-Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division, Ganjam under Annexures-1 & 2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law on two counts, firstly, the said orders passed by opposite party no.1 is without jurisdiction and secondly, he has acted at the behest of the senior authority. Therefore, he has not applied his mind while passing the impugned assessment orders. It is further contended that while passing the impugned assessment orders, opposite party no.1 has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereby, principle of natural justice has not been complied with. Apart from that it is urged that so far as para 5.0-Test Reports of Annexure-2 is concerned, opposite party no.1 has accepted the test report at Sl. No.4 in respect of CRCL, Pusa, New Delhi and has rejected so far as test reports at Sl. Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are concerned. It is contended that while doing so, opposite party no.1 has not assigned any reasons for such acceptance and rejection of test reports. It is further contended that though against the final assessment orders appeal lies, alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain this writ petition when the impugned order is without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Khani Khyatigrasta Gramya Committee v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax & GST [W.P.(C) No.27946 of 2023, disposed of on 09.11.2023]; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95; Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla v. Greenworld Corporation Parwanoo, (2009) 7 SCC 69; Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India, 1970 (3) SCC 76; Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots Association v. Director General of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435; Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs & Anr. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 431, M/s. Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 763 and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427.
5 Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the final assessment orders are appealable and instead of availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing this writ petition, which is not maintainable. It is further contended that opposite party no.1, while passing the final assessment orders, has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised to that effect by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner was provisionally assessed under PD Bond No.77/2023 dated 02.06.2023 for an amount of Rs.30,79,13,411/- executed by the exporter. As per the contract reference dated 18.05.2023, the overseas buyer was M/s. Caravel Metallurgical Limited, Hong Kong. The price of Iron Ore Calibrated Lumps was USD 82.00 per DMKT CFR FO One Main Port North China based on 56.50% Fe fraction prorate. As per the Fixture Note dated 26.05.2023, the Freight rate was USD 10.70. On the relevant date the exchange rate of USD 1.00 was Rs.81.70. The aforesaid Shipping Bill was assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 under cover of P.D. Bond No.77/2023 dated 02.06.2023, for an amount of Rs.30,79,13,411/- executed by the exporter, for want of Final Invoice, Test analysis Reports, e-BRC etc. In paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the impugned assessment order dated 24.04.2024 state as follows:
“2.2. The Shipping Bill was Provisionally Assessed under PD Bond No. 77/2023 dated 02.06.2023 executed by the exporter and sample for testing was drawn by the department (Export-Docks Section) in the presence of representative of CHA/Exporter vide Test Memo No.-23/2023-24 dated 05.06.2023. The subject Shipping Bill was classified under Tariff item No.26011122 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and was assessed to ‘NIL’ duty, based on the Pre-shipment Analysis Report dated 01.06.2023. The Fe content was certified to be 56.85% by the M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. i.e. below 58%, which attracts NIL rate of duty in terms of Sl. No. 20A of the Notification No. 27/2011-Cus dated 01.03.2011, as amended.
2.3. Test Report received from CRCL, Visakhapatnam vide Lab No. VCL/EXP/2263 dated 17.07.2023 against the Test Memo No.23/2023-24 dated 05.06.2023 indicated the Fe content 57.4% and Moisture 1.4%.”
7. Paragraph 5.0-Test Reports of the impugned assessment order dated 24.04.2024 under Annexure-1 shows that CRCL Re-Test Report at Sl. No.4 in respect of CRCL, Pusa, New Delhi has been accepted and other four test reports in respect of SGS India Pvt. Ltd., SGS India Pvt. Ltd., CRCL, Visakhapatnam and CCIC have been rejected without assigning any reasons. Therefore, it is contended that acceptance and rejection of such reports, without assigning any reason, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Apart from that, opposite party no.1-Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division, Ganjam has acted at the behest of the Commissioner of the Customs, Bhubaneswar.
8. Therefore, the impugned assessment orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.05.2024 passed by opposite party no. 1-Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division, Ganjam under Annexures-1 & 2 respectively are quashed. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned with a direction to hear it afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Author Bio
