Court dismisses challenge to non-speaking order of assessment under Customs Act, stresses importance of timely requests The High Court of Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging a non-speaking order of assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Export ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court dismisses challenge to non-speaking order of assessment under Customs Act, stresses importance of timely requests
The High Court of Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging a non-speaking order of assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Export Department under section 17(5) of the Customs Act. The petitioner's request for speaking orders regarding shipping bills was deemed untimely, as it was made a year after goods clearance and duty payment. The Court emphasized the importance of timely requests for speaking orders to ensure a fair appeal process, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to delay.
Issues involved: Challenge against non-speaking order of assessment u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act for goods covered by Shipping Bills.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta addressed a writ application challenging a non-speaking order of assessment by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Export Department. The petitioner requested for speaking orders to be passed regarding the shipping bills within a specified time frame. The Court noted that u/s 17(5) of the Customs Act mandates assessment through a speaking order to facilitate a fair appeal process. However, the petitioner's request for a speaking order was made a year after the goods were cleared and duty was paid. The Court emphasized that the purpose of u/s 17(5) is to provide reasons for assessment for a fair appeal process. It was highlighted that the authorities should pass a speaking order unless the importers or exporters confirm acceptance of the assessment in writing. The Court found that the request for a speaking order should have been made promptly upon receipt of the final assessment, rather than two years later. Consequently, the Court deemed the writ petition as barred by delay and dismissed it solely on that ground. Affidavits were not called for, and allegations not supported by record were deemed as not admitted. The Court directed for urgent certified copies of the order to be provided to the parties upon application and compliance with formalities.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
