2017 (10) TMI 572 - AT - Customs

Importance of Speaking Orders in Customs Appeals: Tribunal Emphasizes Fairness and Timeliness

The case involved issues of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) due to non-receipt of speaking orders under section 17(5) of the ... Non-speaking order - reassessment of Bills of Entry - Valuation of imported goods - defective tinplates - misprinted sheets - section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - the Assessing Officer had done re-assessment, but no speaking order on the re-assessment was issued within 15 days from the date of re-assessment of the Bill of Entry. In such situation, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sigma Power Products (P) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs(Port) and Others [2017 (3) TMI 497 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], set aside the re-assessment order as the proper officer had not passed a speaking order on the re-assessment within 15 days of the re-assessment of the Bills of Entry. The Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period - In the present case, the appellant filed the appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) without the speaking order, as required to be passed under section 17(5) of the Act - it is clear that the appellant should have filed the appeal after obtaining the speaking order against the Bills of Entry under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The assessing officer would pass the speaking order as required under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 forthwith and thereafter the appellant is at liberty to challenge the re-assessment made by the assessing officer in the Bills of Entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:1. Delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) due to non-receipt of speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Applicability of speaking order requirement under section 17(5) for reassessment of Bills of Entry.3. Discretion of Commissioner(Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeals.4. Requirement of a speaking order for an efficacious appeal under Section 128 of the Act.Detailed analysis:1. The main issue in this case pertains to the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) due to the non-receipt of a speaking order under section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the appeals were not time-barred as they had not received the speaking order within the stipulated period. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeals as time-barred, leading to a dispute over the delay issue.2. The requirement of a speaking order under section 17(5) for reassessment of Bills of Entry was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that under section 17(5), if a reassessment is done contrary to the self-assessment by the importer, the proper officer must pass a speaking order within 15 days of the reassessment. Failure to do so can render the reassessment invalid, as seen in the case law references provided by the Tribunal.3. The judgment also delved into the discretion of the Commissioner(Appeals) to condone the delay in filing appeals beyond the stipulated period. It was established that the Commissioner(Appeals) does not have the power to condone such delays. This aspect was crucial in determining the fate of the appeals filed by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals).4. Additionally, the judgment highlighted the necessity of a speaking order for an efficacious appeal under Section 128 of the Act. Various case laws were cited to emphasize that a speaking order is essential for the proper assessment and challenge of the value of goods in Bills of Entry. The failure to provide a speaking order was deemed a violation of natural justice and the principles of fair administrative practices.In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the Customs Act, particularly regarding the issuance of speaking orders for reassessments. It clarified the obligations of the assessing officer and the rights of the importer in challenging such reassessments through proper appeals processes.