Case Law Details

Case Name : Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 60170 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/03/2021
Related Assessment Year :

Manavi Exim Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (CESTAT Chandigarh)

In case of assessment done under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein the re-assessment has been accepted by the assessee importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment within 15 days on the date of re-assessment of the bills of entry. Admittedly, in this case, no speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been passed till date. The appellant initially waited for the order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Later on, made a protest or grievance before the authorities below and the said request was rejected. In that circumstance, when no order has been passed under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is mandate in law that a speaking order is required to be passed in writing within 15 days of the re-assessment of bills of entry, I hold that the appeal filed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not barred by limitation.

Further,  the  order under  Section  17(5) of  the  Customs  Act, 1962 is required to be passed by the assessing officer. In these circumstances, in the absence of the order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, I direct the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order for re-assessment in writing from 15 days of received of this order.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

PER ASHOK JINDAL:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the appeal filed by the appellant before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment of the impugned two bills of entry has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported mini booster pumps and plastic fittings and filed bills of entry no. 8642427 dated 18.03.2015 and 8668133 dated 20.03.2015, which were cleared by loading value and allowed clearance. Thereafter, the appellant sought order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and after passing of substantial time, the appellant made a grievance in 2018 and the appellant received a letter dated 28.05.2018 that on the basis DOV data of contemporaneous import of similar goods and loading value was accepted by CHA. In view of this, the enhanced value of the imported goods has been accepted and the request for a speaking order at this stage does not merit consideration. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who (in the impugned order) has held that assessment of the impugned bills of entry was done in March 2015 and the present appeal which in a fact challenges the assessment having filed in 2018 is barred by limitation. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.

3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in case of enhancement of value, a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be passed within 15 days of the assessment. Further, the CHA was not capable for accepting loading of value, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the ld. supports the impugned order and submits that consent for loading of value was given by the CHA who is the authorized representative of the appellant, therefore, the speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not required.

5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the appellant has challenged the impugned order on two grounds:

(a) A speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been passed after loading of value and CHA was not authorized to accent the enhanced value of the imported goods. But the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the appeal is barred by limitation.

7. In fact, whether provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 are applicable to the facts of the case, are to be examined. The provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 are as under:

“(5) Where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self assessment done by the importer or exporter regarding valuation of goods, classification, exemption or concessions of duty availed consequent to any notification issued therefore under this Act and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bills, as the case may be.”

8. On careful consideration of the said provisions, I find that in case of assessment done under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein the re-assessment has been accepted by the assessee importer, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment within 15 days on the date of re-assessment of the bills of entry. Admittedly, in this case, no speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 has been passed till date. The appellant initially waited for the order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. Later on, made a protest or grievance before the authorities below and the said request was rejected. In that circumstance, when no order has been passed under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is mandate in law that a speaking order is required to be passed in writing within 15 days of the re-assessment of bills of entry, I hold that the appeal filed before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not barred by limitation.

9. Further,  the  order under  Section  17(5) of  the  Customs  Act, 1962 is required to be passed by the assessing officer. In these circumstances, in the absence of the order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, I direct the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order for re-assessment in writing from 15 days of received of this order.

10. All other issues are kept open.

11. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

(Order pronounced in the court on 18.03.2021)

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Custom Duty

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930