2014 (5) TMI 87 - HC - Customs

Alternate Remedy of Appeal Assessee agitating bona fide -Duty free imports under advance licence Non-Furnishment of bank guarantee Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Officer lower in rank than Commissioner has a right of appeal to Commissioner (A) within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of the order, however, can be extended for another 30 days if sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal is shown - Assessee should avail of the statutory remedy of appeal - Considering the nature of the disputes involved, this court is not inclined to entertain the petition directly - Since assessee was pursuing the remedy before this Court under bona fide belief Commissioner(A), if assesse files such an appeal latest by 31.12.2012, shall hear and decide the same on merits - Assessee is agitating the grievances about not being able to make imports without furnishing bank guarantee, Commissioner shall hear such appeal expeditiously Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Right of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejecting a request for duty-free imports without a bank guarantee.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the preliminary contention raised by the Revenue's counsel regarding the statutory right of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 8.10.2012, which rejected the request for duty-free imports without a bank guarantee. The court highlighted that any person aggrieved by an order passed under the Customs Act by an officer lower than the Commissioner of Customs has the right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. This period can be extended by 30 days with a valid reason for delay.

2. The court emphasized the importance of availing the statutory remedy of appeal, stating that the petitioner should pursue this route rather than seeking direct intervention from the court. The judgment clarified that if the petitioner files an appeal by a specified date, the Appellate Commissioner should hear and decide the appeal on its merits. Additionally, considering the nature of the dispute regarding duty-free imports without a bank guarantee, the Commissioner was directed to expedite the appeal process and aim to dispose of it within four months from the date of receipt.

3. The judgment concluded by providing observations and directions, disposing of the petition while emphasizing the significance of following the statutory appeal process and ensuring timely resolution of the appeal by the Commissioner. The court's decision focused on upholding the statutory provisions and guiding the petitioner to seek redressal through the established legal framework rather than direct judicial intervention.