TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner had approached the authorities by submitting bills of entry on 15-12-2006 and 18-12-2006. It is alleged that on persistent request made by the petitioner for release of the goods, it was only on 22-12-2006 that the goods were examined. It has further been pleaded that the goods imported are seasonal in nature, which are required for manufacture of garments to be used in winters and any delay in. release of the consignments was detrimental to the business interest of the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner was also incurring losses on account of demur- rages. Still further, the petitioner submitted that in case the final assessment was not possible, the goods could very well be released by framing provisional assessment in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r has been kept pending while awaiting the test report. Even the test report had been received on 1-2-2007, yet the assessment order has not been passed. It is not denied that the goods under import are not prohibited goods. The petitioner-entrepreneur is facing competition on account of globalization and detaining the goods for a period of over three months is likely to adverse its business interest. It is probably for that reason that instructions have been issued by the Chief Commissioner, Customs and Excise to clear the consignments preferably within a period of 48 hours of receipt of bill of entry. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to direct that the goods be released to the petitioner by pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents having failed to carry out the interim directions given by this Court and on that account the petitioner has suffered huge loss. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action was clearly mala fide. This was without prejudice to the submission of the petitioner that at the stage of provisional assessment, the respondents could not change the tariff entry for assessment of duty. The same could be done only at the time for final assessment. At the time of provisional assessment, the goods were liable to be assessed under the tariff entry declared by the petitioner. Finally he submitted that the bills of entry having been filed by the petitioner way back in December 2006, and non-release of goods e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be exercised in reasonable and proper manner within the limits of jurisdiction conferred on him. Needless to add that there should not be arbitrary exercise of powers. The Section provides that even pending receipt of test report also the provisional assessment can be framed. In the present case, provisional assessment has been framed after the receipt of test report. So, in our view, there is some prima facie material with the proper officer to reach to a conclusion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of framing of provisional assessment, the proper officer does not have the jurisdiction to change the tariff entry for the purpose of assessment of July, has no leg to stand. Provisional assessment o....