2025 (4) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Customs Appeal Succeeds as Procedural Defect Invalidates Time-Barred Rejection, Ensuring Fair Hearing Under Section 17(5)

M/s Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata

The Tribunal ruled that the appellant's customs appeal was not time-barred due to the absence of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act ... Time limitation of filing appeal against the enhanced transaction value of imported polyester knitting fabric - absence of a speaking order from the customs authorities under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not accepted the enhanced value arrived at by the Revenue. They have been protesting and have made it clear that they are paying the same only on account of their urgent requirement of the materials and in order to avoid the payment of extra rent and demurrage charges. The view taken is that because of such request and the correspondence made by the appellant, it was incumbent on the Revenue to issue a speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962, which was not done in this case. Since no speaking order was issued, the appellant was compelled to treat the Bill of Entry as the impugned document to file their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the Bill of Entry date and has held that the appeal has been filed belatedly. As per the factual matrix discussed above, there are no error on the part of the appellant to have filed their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), based on the Bills of Entry. Conclusion - The appellant has filed the appeal correctly and the appeal filed by them is not time barred. Therefore, the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). He is required to go through all the documentary evidence placed before him and follow the principles of natural justice and pass a considered decision within four months from the date of receipt of this communication. Appeal disposed off by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered was whether the appellant's appeal against the enhanced transaction value of imported polyester knitting fabric was filed within the permissible time frame, given the absence of a speaking order from the customs authorities under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962. Additionally, the Tribunal examined whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred based on the date of the Bill of Entry.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework revolves around Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962, which mandates the issuance of a speaking order when the transaction value declared by the importer is not accepted by customs authorities. The Tribunal considered the statutory requirement for a speaking order in cases where the declared value is enhanced and the implications of its absence on the appeal timeline.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal interpreted Section 17(5) as imposing a duty on customs authorities to issue a speaking order when they enhance the declared transaction value. The absence of such an order was deemed a procedural lapse that justified the appellant's reliance on the Bills of Entry as the basis for their appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that without a speaking order, the appellant was left without a formal decision to appeal against, thereby affecting the calculation of the appeal period.Key Evidence and FindingsThe Tribunal reviewed correspondence between the appellant and customs authorities, including letters and entries in the appeal paper book, which demonstrated the appellant's consistent protest against the enhanced value and their requests for a formal assessment order. This evidence supported the appellant's claim that they did not accept the enhanced value and were compelled to pay under duress due to urgent material needs.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the statutory requirement of a speaking order to the facts, concluding that the absence of such an order invalidated the Commissioner's reliance on the Bill of Entry date to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions were consistent with procedural expectations given the lack of a formal decision from customs authorities.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the respondent's argument that the Bills of Entry were assessed finally at the time of import and thus did not require a speaking order. However, the Tribunal found this position untenable in light of the appellant's documented protests and requests for reassessment, which indicated that the assessment was not final in the appellant's view.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the appellant's appeal was not time-barred due to the absence of a speaking order, which was a necessary procedural step that customs authorities failed to complete. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the absence of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act 1962 invalidates the reliance on the Bill of Entry date for calculating the appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for customs authorities to issue a speaking order when rejecting declared transaction values and enhancing them, as this forms the basis for any subsequent appeals.The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to review all documentary evidence and adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring a considered decision within four months. This holding underscores the procedural obligations of customs authorities and the rights of importers to a fair assessment process.