Statutory exemption in customs assessment must be applied first; refund follows only after assessment is amended.

A statutory exemption notification must be considered by the assessing authority at the time of assessment, even if the assessee did not expressly claim it, and writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite an alternate statutory appeal where the assessment is ex facie erroneous and causes manifest injustice. On the facts, the omission to claim the exemption was treated as inadvertent, so the additional duty component was directed to be removed from the assessments. However, refund could not be granted immediately because the underlying bills of entry first had to be amended; only after that modification could refund be pursued in accordance with law, including unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal and the petitioners' failure to challenge the assessment orders in appeal; (ii) Whether the assessment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 could be interfered with and the refund claim granted without first modifying the assessment orders.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal and the petitioners' failure to challenge the assessment orders in appeal.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar exercise of writ jurisdiction. Where the impugned action is ex facie erroneous and results in manifest injustice, the Court may interfere. The assessing authority was bound to consider the applicable exemption notification while making assessment, even if the assessee had not expressly claimed it. On the facts, the petitioners had been extended the same exemption in earlier and later imports, and the omission to claim it in the relevant bills of entry was found to be an inadvertent mistake.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the Court was entitled to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 could be interfered with and the refund claim granted without first modifying the assessment orders.

Analysis: The Court held that when a statutory exemption applies, duty not otherwise payable cannot be collected merely because the assessee failed to claim the benefit at the time of assessment. However, in view of the governing principle that refund cannot be ordered before the assessment is amended or modified, the refund prayer could not be granted immediately. The proper course was to direct modification of the bills of entry first, after which a refund application could be considered in accordance with law, including on the question of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The assessments were directed to be amended to exclude additional duty, but the refund claim was rejected at that stage and left to be pursued after modification of the assessments.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the duty component in the assessments and compelling correction of the bills of entry, but the monetary refund relief was deferred for consideration only after the assessments were amended.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption notification must be applied by the assessing authority while making assessment, and where duty is collected contrary to law, writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternate remedy; however, refund can be sought only after the underlying assessment is first modified or set aside.

---