Case Law Details
Technology Next Through Its Proprietor Sh. Ashim Gupta Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed the case of Technology Next, represented by Sh. Ashim Gupta, against the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The crux of the matter revolved around the denial of customs refund without considering the request to reassess the bill of entry. This article delves into the details of the case, the court’s analysis, and its consequential directives.
Technology Next, a trader of internet networking equipment, imported goods under Bill of Entry No. 5709318 dated 16.11.2019. However, the Assessing Authority modified the classification, resulting in a higher customs duty. De-spite Technology Next’s request for reassessment and a speaking order, the authority failed to act, leading to the payment of excess duty amounting to Rs.8,42,518/-.
The petitioner pursued an appeal, culminating in a favorable decision on 31.10.2022. The court directed the Assessing Authority to reevaluate the bill of entry and pro-vide a speaking order after affording Technology Next a personal hearing. However, despite the pas-sage of time, the adjudicating proceedings remained unresolved.
During the court proceedings, it was revealed that the impugned order inaccurately suggested that the bill of entry was filed after the effective date of a notification, where-as it was lodged prior. Consequently, the Delhi HC disposed of the petition, instructing the adjudicating authority to expedite the proceedings within six weeks, ensuring a fair hearing for Technology Next.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to sanction and grant re-fund of excess duty of Rs.8,42,5 18/-.
2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of internet networking equipment.
3. The Petitioner vide Bill of Entry No. 5709318 dated 16.11.2019 had imported networking equipment whereby the Assessing Authority changed the classification for certain items, thereby attracting a larger percentage of customs duty than the previous classification.
4. In view of the same, Petitioner had requested the Assessing Authority to reassess the Bill of Entry and issue a speaking order. However, the Assessing Authority neither reassessed the Bill of Entry nor passed any speaking order. Further, Petitioner paid Rs.8,42,518/- as customs duty to clear the consignment.
5. Aggrieved by such assessment, the Petitioner filed an appeal. The said appeal was decided vide order dated 31.10.2022 wherein the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority with directions to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the adjudicating proceedings are still pending before the competent authority and assures that the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order in appeal was passed on 31.10.2022 and till date the adjudicating authority has not disposed of the proceedings. He further submits that the impugned order which records that the Notification dated 10.12.2019 was made effective from 01.01.2020 seems to suggest that the bill of entry lodged by the petitioner was filed after the Notification came into force. He submits that bill of entry was filed on 16.11.2019 before the Notification admittedly came into force on 01.01.2020.
8. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for respondent, the petition is disposed of directing the adjudicating authority to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a period of six weeks from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. It is clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to avail of such further remedies as may be permissible in law in case petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondents.
Author Bio
