TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted from M/s. YEIH Corporation Ltd., Taiwan and were covered by their invoice dated 23.12.2009. The goods were examined on 6.2.2010 and found to be exigible to Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) as per the examination report. The assessing authority did not act upon the Bill of Entry for a while. On 24.2.2010, the assessing authority for the first time viewed the document in EDI system and endorsed final assessment thereon. The assessing officer also put a query to the importer, which reads: due to non-incorporation of final ADD notification in system, please verify ADD payment as per Notification No.14/2010 Sl. No.22 at 2254.69 USD/MT vide MC and shed Superintendent may please record the same in the system before OCC - by Harish, GP, on 24.2.2010 at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 128 of the Customs Act does not provide for any appeal against oral instructions. It is submitted that any order appealable under Section 128 should be one in writing. In the absence of such order of the assessing authority, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have entertained the assessees appeal. 2.The learned counsel for the respondent reiterates the cross objections filed by them. 3.It is submitted that the assessing authority was not expected to delay the assessment in any manner prejudicial to the importer. On the date of filing of the bill of entry, the goods were exigible to provisional ADD at lower rate in terms of Notification No.38/2009 dated 22.4.2009. The assessing authority delayed action on the bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect. When the assessing authority issued an oral instruction to the assessee, it was open to the latter to request for an order in writing, but they didn't choose to do so. When the final assessment order dated 24.2.2010 was viewed by them in the EDI system, it was open to them to prefer an appeal against it, but, again, they didn't choose to do it. In the meanwhile, the goods remained in the port incurring demurrages for the importer. When it appeared from the conduct of the importer that they were not inclined to clear the goods on payment of ADD in terms of Notification No.14/2010, the authorities ought to have considered their request for re-export. The learned counsel has pointed out that the law permits re-export. We have looked up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learance of imported goods for home consumption under section 47 : Provided that the period of thirty days may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding three months: Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall apply to the goods regarding which an offence appears to have been committed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. (2)An application for refund of duty shall be made before the expiry of six months from the relevant date in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, relevant date means, - (a)in cases where the goods are exported out of India, the date on which the prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such scenario, the Customs authorities ought to have favourably entertained the respondents request for re-export of the goods. The lower appellate authority wanted to give this relief to them, but without any appeal lawfully filed in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act. As we have got to uphold the rule of law, we can hardly justify the action of the lower appellate authority. He ought to have disposed of the assessees appeal with appropriate advice to them so that they could have requested the higher authorities in the department (on the administrative side) for permission to re-export the goods. 6.The main ground raised by the appellant is that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not an appeal file....