2014 (1) TMI 15 - HC - Customs

Reduction of Extra Duty Deposit - Denied of reduction from 5% to 1% - Held that - Petitioners have made applications to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB) seeking the benefit of EDD at 1% instead of 5% in respect of related party imports pending finalization of Bills of Entry. So far as Writ Petition No.8837 of 2013 is concerned, the Petitioner seeks the renewal of the benefit of 1% EDD granted to them by order dated 2 May 2008. While in respect of Writ Petition No.9960 of 2013, a fresh order is sought. In both the petitions, personal hearings have been fixed by the authorities and adjourned - Petitioners, there is no reason for the Respondent authorities not to dispose of the applications on the basis of the materials submitted by the Petitioners. In case there is lack of any information submitted by the Petitioners, it is at their peril. However, it is not fair for the Respondent authorities to sit over the applications and not dispose them. Therefore, we direct the Additional Commissioner of Customs to grant hearings in both the applications pending - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Failure to dispose of applications for reduction of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) from 5% to 1% in case of imports from related parties pending finalization of Bills of Entry.

The judgment by the Bombay High Court, delivered by Mohit S Shah and M S Sanklecha, JJ., addresses the failure of customs authorities to process applications for reducing Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) from 5% to 1% for imports from related parties pending finalization of Bills of Entry. The petitioners in both cases had applied for the benefit of EDD at 1% instead of 5% to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB). One petition sought renewal of the benefit granted in 2008, while the other requested a fresh order. The authorities had fixed and adjourned personal hearings, claiming the applications were pending due to missing details from the petitioners. However, the petitioners argued they had provided all required documents and information. The court noted that there was no valid reason for the authorities to delay processing the applications based on the materials submitted. The court directed the Additional Commissioner of Customs to conduct hearings in both applications and make a decision in accordance with the law, preferably by December 31, 2013.

In conclusion, the court disposed of both petitions by directing the customs authorities to process the applications for EDD reduction promptly. The judgment emphasized that if there was any lack of information, it was the petitioners' responsibility, but the authorities should not unduly delay the decision-making process. The court's directive aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the pending applications in accordance with the law, without imposing any costs on either party.