2010 (3) TMI 547 - HC - Customs

Customs duty ruling favors petitioner, respondent to issue speaking order for appeal within 10 days

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent to issue a speaking order within 10 days to enable the petitioner to challenge the ... Speaking order - whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the in Ext. P5, the view taken is that a refund claim is not maintainable, when the assessee does not challenge the assessment order. Bill of entry appealable but the same not prevents respondent from passing speaking order. Held that - speaking order can be passed to enable petitioner to file appeal. Respondent directed to issue speaking order. Issues:1. Incorrect assessment of customs duty on imported marble slabs from Srilanka under Indo Srilanka Free Trade Agreement.2. Rejection of refund claim for excess customs duty paid due to failure to claim exemption under the Free Trade Agreement while filing the Bill of Entry.3. Request for a speaking order from the respondent to enable the petitioner to challenge the assessment order in appeal.Analysis:1. The petitioner imported polished marble slabs from Srilanka under the Indo Srilanka Free Trade Agreement, entitling them to exemption from basic customs duty. However, an inadvertent mistake led to the Bill of Entry being filed without mentioning the exemption notification, resulting in an assessment of customs duty at a rate of 10% instead of the correct amount. The petitioner sought rectification, but the respondent rejected the request, prompting the filing of a writ petition for relief.2. The petitioner was compelled to pay Rs. 6,70,321/- as customs duty, whereas the actual payable amount was Rs. 3,45,012/-. Despite submitting a refund claim supported by relevant documents, the claim was denied on the grounds that the assessment order was not challenged. The respondent contended that since the petitioner failed to claim the exemption initially, they cannot seek it at a later stage, suggesting that any grievance should be addressed through the appeal process.3. In response to the petitioner's plea for a speaking order to understand the rationale behind denying the benefit of the Free Trade Agreement, the court directed the respondent to issue a detailed order within 10 days. While acknowledging that a Bill of Entry is appealable, the court emphasized the importance of providing a speaking order to facilitate the petitioner's right to appeal and challenge the decision effectively. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a directive for the respondent to issue the speaking order without imposing any costs on the petitioner.