2016 (8) TMI 640 - HC - Customs

Re-assessment of the bill of entry - granting exemption from payment of customs duty - import of goods for supply to the Indian Air Force - claim of refund - Held that - without going into the merits of the contentions of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner s representation dated 6.5.2015 on merits and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to enable the petitioner to produce the original documents and clarify any issues that may arise while considering their representation. No costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Petitioner seeks direction for re-assessment of customs duty exemption on imported goods supplied to Indian Air Force.
- Dispute arises regarding submission of necessary documents for refund application.
- Pending representation before second respondent for re-assessed copy of Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested re-assessment of customs duty exemption on goods supplied to Indian Air Force. The goods were imported and installed in various Air Force establishments. A customs duty exemption certificate was issued by the Head Quarters Training Command, Indian Air Force, certifying eligibility for exemption from duty. Subsequently, a refund application was filed before the third respondent.

2. The third respondent issued a show cause notice requesting specific documents for processing the refund application, including a re-assessed copy of the Bill of Entry, import invoice, documents evidencing duty payment, and a certificate regarding unjust enrichment. The petitioner complied with most requirements but awaited re-assessment of the Bill of Entry.

3. The petitioner's representation for re-assessment of the Bill of Entry was pending before the second respondent. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation on its merits and in accordance with the law. The court emphasized affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing to clarify any issues related to the representation.

4. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions but focused on directing the second respondent to address the pending representation appropriately. The court clarified that it did not issue a positive direction but instructed the second respondent to evaluate the representation and make a decision in line with legal procedures.

5. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation diligently, ensuring adherence to legal requirements and providing the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing. No costs were imposed in this matter.