2018 (11) TMI 1921 - HC - Customs

Court denies immediate relief in writ petition for final assessment, awaits appeal process

M/s. Sai Exports, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Mahesh Kumar Versus. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (GR. 3),

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking mandamus for final assessment of bills of entry, without expressing views on merits. The petitioner's ... Seeking directions to respondent to carry out final assessment for the various bills of entry filed by the petitioner commencing from the month of May 2015 - grievance of the petitioner is that even though the subject matter bills of entry were provisionally assessed by taking bank guarantees from the petitioner, the respondent has not chosen to pass final orders - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is filed for passing final orders on the bills of entry filed by the petitioner from the month of May 2015. At the same time, the petitioner seeks for such final orders, by taking into account of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 01.3.2018. Since it is claimed by the respondent that they are contemplating to file an appeal against the said order of the Tribunal, this Court is not in a position to issue a positive direction to the respondent to pass final orders by taking into account of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 01.03.2018, as it is always open to the respondent to challenge the said order before the next Appellate Forum. This writ petition is disposed of. Issues:Mandamus for final assessment of bills of entry; Challenge to provisional assessment; Contemplation of appeal by revenue; Disposal of writ petition without expressing view on merits.Analysis:The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent to carry out the final assessment for various bills of entry filed since May 2015. The bills were provisionally assessed with bank guarantees, but final orders were not passed despite a favorable decision by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on March 1, 2018. The petitioner's grievance was the delay in passing final orders despite the Tribunal's decision in their favor.The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the issue was not final as they were considering appealing the Tribunal's decision. The revenue received notice of the decision on September 25, 2018, and was within the time limit to file an appeal. The respondent argued that they could only pass final orders on the bills of entry once the appeal process was concluded.The Court acknowledged the petitioner's request for final orders based on the Tribunal's decision but noted that the respondent's intention to appeal meant they could not direct immediate action based on the Tribunal's order. The Court highlighted that the respondent had the right to challenge the Tribunal's decision in the appropriate forum. Therefore, without delving into the merits of the claims, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue remedies once the statutory appeal period had lapsed. No costs were awarded in the judgment.