2017 (9) TMI 1814 - HC - Customs

Finalization of provisional assessment - Section 14 and 17 of the Customs Act - It appears from the pleadings that on the basis of the bill of entry and with the consent of the petitioners that they do not want provisional assessment, the valuation of the aluminium scrap imported was done and that was accepted by the petitioners for the payment of customs duty - HELD THAT - Valuation of the aluminium scrap imported has been done by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the bill of entry and the same has been accepted by the petitioners, they cannot turn around at this stage to question the valuation and the consequential assessment of the custom duty. Valuation done by the Assessing Officer has lead to the assessment of the custom duty payable by the petitioners which can be assailed by them by filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Act wherein not only the assessment of duty but also the valuation of the goods can be considered and decided. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's prayer for direction on assessing the value of imported aluminium scrap.
2. Acceptance of valuation by petitioners and subsequent payment of customs duty.
3. Challenge to valuation and assessment of customs duty.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Availability of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the assessment of the value of aluminium scrap imported in accordance with statutory provisions. Initially, three prayers were made, but counsel for the petitioner decided to focus only on prayer (c) concerning the valuation issue. The petitioner requested suitable direction to the Assessing Officer to assess the value as per Customs Act Sections 14 and 17, or to provisionally assess under Section 18 if the initial valuation was not accepted.

The court noted that the valuation of the imported aluminium scrap was conducted based on the bill of entry and with the petitioner's consent, who did not opt for provisional assessment. The valuation alerts were provided to the petitioner before assessment, and the valuation accepted by the petitioner was used to calculate the customs duty payable. The court emphasized that since the petitioner had accepted the valuation and subsequent assessment, they could not challenge it at a later stage.

The petitioner's argument about practical problems and potential demurrage was dismissed by the court, stating that the voluntary or forced acceptance of the valuation was not subject to judicial review under Article 226. The court highlighted that any dispute regarding the assessment of customs duty or valuation could be addressed through an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, providing a proper forum for such challenges.

Considering the circumstances, the court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal proceedings, including filing an appeal under Section 128, if advised to do so. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and utilizing the available legal remedies for challenging customs duty assessments and valuation decisions.