TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been finalised and the bank guarantees furnished by the Petitioner in connection therewith continued to remain outstanding. 2. The Petitioner, accordingly, seeks the following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ of mandamus order direction thereby directing the respondents to grant NOC and allow the release of the bank guarantees of INR 19,19,400/- submitted by the petitioner for provisional assessment of bill of entry numbers 7101786 dated 17.10.2014 and 9161421, 9161619, 9159800, 9161524, 9160667, 9160108, 9161256, 9160186 all dated 07.05.2015; And / Or; (ii) issue a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents from initiation of proceedings to finalise the provisional assessment of bill of entry numbers 7101786 dated 17.10.2014 and 9161421, 9161619, 9159800, 9161524, 9160667, 9160108, 9161256, 9160186 all dated 07.05.2015 filed by the petitioner, And/Or, (iii) pass such other or further order/s which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 3. The controversy, however, has undergone a material change during the pendency of the present proceedings. An Order-in-Original dated 21.01.2022 had already been passed in respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....despite the passage of several years, the provisional assessments were not finalised and the bank guarantees continued to remain outstanding. The Petitioner asserts that it repeatedly approached the Customs authorities seeking information regarding the status of the assessments and release of the bank guarantees. 11. The Petitioner submitted an RTI application dated 19.07.2022 seeking information regarding the status of the bank guarantees. As no response was received, the Petitioner preferred an appeal dated 30.08.2022 before the first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner thereafter received a response stating, inter alia, that the matter relating to the bank guarantees was pending as the Bills of Entry were provisional. The Petitioner thereafter addressed a communication dated 14.05.2024 to the Customs authorities seeking, inter alia, release of the bank guarantees and issuance of the requisite No Objection Certificate. 12. The present Writ Petition was thereafter instituted in the year 2024. 13. It is, however, material to notice that an Order-in-Original dated 21.01.2022 had already been passed by the Joint Commissioner of Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an express period within which a provisional assessment is required to be finalised. However, according to the Petitioner, the absence of an express statutory period cannot confer an unlimited power upon the Customs authorities to keep a provisional assessment pending indefinitely. 19.3. Reliance was placed upon the instructions contained in the Customs Manuals as well as the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 and submits that provisional assessments are required to be finalised expeditiously. Further reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Gupta Smelter Private Limited v. Union of India & Another CWP No. 4134/2017 (O&M) and Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. CWP No. 21115/2019 (O&M) to contend that even in the absence of an express statutory limitation, the power to finalise a provisional assessment has to be exercised within a reasonable period. 19.4. It was submitted that the delay in the present case was wholly unexplained and that the Petitioner ought not to be compelled to suffer indefinitely on account of the inaction of the Customs authorities. Learned counsel has also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also materially changed since the institution of the Writ Petition, inasmuch as adjudication orders have now been passed. ISSSUES FOR DETERMINATION: 21. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the following questions arise for consideration: I. Whether, in view of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd., the present Writ Petition ought to be kept pending? II. Whether, in view of the subsequent passing of the Orders-in-Original, the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 128(1) of the Act? III. What relief, if any, ought to be granted to the Petitioner? ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: 22. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the record. 23. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the present Writ Petition ought to be kept pending in view of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. GMR Airport Infrastructure Ltd. 24. It would, therefore, be apposite to notice the relevant portion of the said ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the Petitioner is entitled to consequential relief in respect of the security furnished in connection with the import transactions has to be considered in the context of the adjudication orders which now govern the rights and liabilities of the parties. 32. The position has been further altered by the passing of two additional Orders-in-Original dated 31.03.2026 and 15.06.2026 during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. Thus, the remaining Bills of Entry have also been subjected to adjudication. 33. The present proceedings, therefore, cannot now be examined as though the provisional assessments continue to remain at the stage at which they stood when the Petitioner approached this Court. 34. Once an adjudication order has been passed, the Act itself provides a statutory appellate mechanism. Section 128(1) of the Act provides for an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against, inter alia, a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs. 35. The availability of such statutory remedy assumes particular significance in the facts of the present case. The adjudication orders are not merely formal orders recording....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders have already been made and the statutory appellate remedy against those orders is available to the Petitioner. 43. The principle that a writ court ordinarily does not entertain a petition where an efficacious statutory remedy is available is particularly relevant in the present circumstances. No exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated which would warrant this Court bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism. 44. It is equally relevant that the Petitioner seeks, by way of a writ of prohibition, to restrain the Customs authorities from initiating or completing the finalisation/adjudication process. That prayer has substantially become infructuous in view of the Orders-in-Original which have already been passed. 45. The relief of mandamus seeking release of the bank guarantees cannot be considered in isolation from the subsequent adjudication orders. The rights and liabilities of the parties have now to be examined in the light of those orders. It would not be appropriate for this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to adjudicate upon the consequential relief without first permitting the statutory appellate forum to examine the legality and correctness....