2009 (9) TMI 567 - HC - Customs

High Court dismisses challenge to customs assessment, directs appeal to Tribunal under Customs Act

The High Court of BOMBAY dismissed the petition challenging a provisional assessment order by the Commissioner, Customs and Excise. The court held that ... Assessment - Provisional Assessment - by the impugned order the petitioners have been called upon to deposit 50% of the differential value i.e. Rs. 1,25,21,129/- which is contrary to the Regulation 2 under which at the time of passing of the order of provisional assessment the assessee can be asked to deposit only 20% amount assessed. Writ petition filed by the petitioner by submitting that no appeal maintainable before Tribunal against provisional assessment as held by Tribunal in case of Shanti Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. Held that - appeal maintainable under section 129A of Custom Act, 1962 against order of Commissioner for provisional assessment. Petitioner entitled to urge all grounds including breach of regulation 2. Not a fit case to exercise extra jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of constitution of India. In the High Court BOMBAY HIGH COURT case of A.P. Lavande and P.D. Kode, JJ., the petitioners challenged an order of provisional assessment passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Excise. The petitioners were asked to deposit 50% of the differential value, which they argued was contrary to Regulation 2. Mr. Deo, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the writ petition against the order was maintainable, citing a relevant case law. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General, argued that the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy through an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. The High Court, after considering the arguments, agreed with the respondent's position that the petitioners had an effective remedy under Section 129A of the Act and dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. The court emphasized that the Tribunal would decide the matter on its own merits. Thus, the petition was rejected, and the petitioners were advised to pursue their case through the prescribed appellate process.