TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 633
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under consideration in the present writ petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had imported certain materials into India. The petitioner had applied under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The application under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1962 has not been finally adjudicated upon under Section 18(2) of such Act. Without a final adjudication under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1962, the authorities have sought to invoke Section 28 of the Act of 1962, read with Section 124 thereof. He submits that, the authorities are entitled to invoke Section 28 of the Act of 1962, if and only if, the petitioner is guilty of not paying the levy or short-paying the same or for the reasons specified in Section 28 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17, 2014. The matter was adjourned sine die. Subsequently, the authorities have passed the impugned order dated February 27, 2015 without affording the petitioner any further opportunity of hearing. The matter was adjourned sine die on April 17, 2014 in view of the then prevailing situation in law. He submits that, a batch of writ petitions had received consideration by this Hon'ble Court and that, the issues raised in such batch of writ petitions are similar to that involved in the present writ petition. Such writ petitioners were disposed of by a judgment and order of the Division Bench dated November 10, 2014. He submits that, the authorities had proceeded against numerous importers of such material. According to him, all such proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invocation of Section 28 of the Act of 1962 arises. However, Section 18 contemplates a situation where there is a doubt as to the quantum of duty payable and the importer leaves the calculation of the duty payable to the wisdom of the Customs authorities agrees to abide by such decision. In the present case, the petitioner upon a bonafide belief that, there are justifiable grounds to make an application under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1962 had done so for the purpose of assessment of the duty payable in respect of the imported goods. Under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1962 the authorities are to make a final assessment. The authorities have not done so. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relying upon 2011(267) ELT 469 Calcutta (A.S.Syndic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he materials made available on record. The petitioner had suffered a show-cause-cum-demand notice issued under Section 28 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 dated July 19, 2013. The petitioner did not reply thereto. The adjudication proceedings under Section 28 read with Section 124 of the Act of 1962 was taken up for consideration on different dates by the adjudicating authority. Upon consideration of the materials made available to it, it had initially found it prudent to adjourn such proceedings sine die on April 17, 2014. Thereafter the adjudicating authority sought to revive the proceedings unilaterally without notice to the petitioner and had passed the impugned order. There are affidavits filed on behalf of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is unable to make selfassessment, to make a request to the proper officer for assessment. In the present case, the petitioner had done so. Under Section 18(2) of the Act of 1962, it is the duty of the officer concerned to inform the duty leviable on the goods imported as finally assessed. In the present case, a final assessment of the duty has not happened. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest otherwise. The Customs Authorities have invoked Section 28 of the Act of 1962 without a final order of assessment. Section 28 of the Act of 1962 allows the Customs Authorities to recover duties not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded. In the present case, none of the situations contemplated under Section 28 has arisen. The duty is y....