Court emphasizes duty of Assessing Officer to issue speaking order promptly

The court held that the Assessing Officer must pass a speaking order within the specified timeframe, emphasizing the duty imposed by law regardless of whether an application is made by the importer or exporter. The court rejected the argument that depositing the reassessed duty implies acceptance and relieves the officer from issuing a speaking order, stating that written confirmation of acceptance is required by law. The court directed the officer to comply with the statutory obligation and communicate the speaking order promptly to the petitioner. The decision did not assess the merit of the re-assessment, allowing the officer to act independently. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Failure of Assessing Officer to pass speaking order within statutory period.

Analysis:
The writ petition raised the issue of the Assessing Officer not passing a speaking order within the statutory period despite an application being made. The self-assessment was disputed by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to re-assessment without a speaking order being issued. The petitioner argued that the statutory duty of passing a speaking order must be fulfilled by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing that the authority cannot avoid this responsibility by keeping an application pending.

The attention was drawn to sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates a speaking order on re-assessment within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the Bill of Entry or the shipping bill. The court noted that the duty to pass a speaking order is imposed on the Assessing Officer, irrespective of whether an application is made by the importer or exporter. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, the court reiterated that the Assessing Officer must pass a speaking order within the specified timeframe, except in cases where the importer confirms acceptance of the assessment in writing.

The respondent argued that if the reassessed duty is deposited by the importer or exporter, it implies acceptance and relieves the Assessing Officer from passing a speaking order. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the legislature's inclusion of the requirement for written confirmation of acceptance must be adhered to strictly. Any other interpretation would defeat the legislative intent. Consequently, the court directed the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order within fifteen days of the order and communicate it to the petitioner promptly.

The court clarified that its order should not be construed as a decision on the merit of the re-assessment, allowing the Assessing Officer to pass the speaking order without influence from any observation. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of without costs.

---