2023 (7) TMI 1194 - HC - Customs

Court Orders Reassessment of Bill of Entry Due to Genuine Mistake in Duty Exemption Application, Ensures Fair Hearing.

M/s. Esquire Multiplast Pvt. Ltd, Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs (Appraising Imports), Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Cochin.,

The HC directed the respondent to reassess the bill of entry after finding a genuine mistake by the petitioner in applying for a duty exemption. Despite ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - no order directing modification of assessment - HELD THAT:- The respondent is to be directed to reassess Ext P2 bill of entry, in accordance with law, which will not cause any prejudice to the respondent and in turn do complete justice to both sides. Thus, notwithstanding the plea of alternative remedy, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in view of Ext P4 circular. Ext P2 bill of entry is recalled - respondent is directed to reassess Ext P2 bill of entry, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard - petition allowed. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the recall and reassessment of a bill of entry u/s Ext P4 circular, statutory remedy of appeal, and the authority of the court to direct reconsideration.Recall and Reassessment of Bill of Entry: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing, exporting, and trading, imported plastic granules from China. Due to an inadvertent mistake in applying for duty exemption meant for a specific scheme, the petitioner requested the recall and reassessment of the bill of entry. Despite submitting a letter for cancellation and reassessment, the respondent did not respond. The petitioner relied on Ext P4 circular by CBIC for recalling and reassessing the bill of entry. The court found the mistake to be genuine and bona fide, directing the respondent to reassess the bill of entry in accordance with the law and Ext P4 circular.Statutory Remedy of Appeal: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and that reassessment cannot be done until the order is modified under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent argued that Ext P4 circular is not applicable to the case. However, the court, considering the genuine mistake and the applicability of Ext P4 circular, decided to entertain the writ petition and direct the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, despite the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal.Authority of the Court to Direct Reconsideration: The petitioner asserted that a bona fide mistake was made while preparing the bill of entry, which was not rectified by the respondent even after being brought to their notice. The court, after perusing the pleadings and materials, found the mistake to be genuine and bona fide. Relying on the Ext P4 circular and legal precedent, the court directed the respondent to reassess the bill of entry after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The court concluded that this direction would not cause prejudice to the respondent and would ensure complete justice to both parties involved.