2018 (3) TMI 1015 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - power of Commissioner (A) to condone delay - Held that - if the appellant were aggrieved by the assessment of the Bill of Entry, he could have either asked for re-assessment of the Bill of Entry or at least challenged the same before the First Appellate Authority within the time available to him for such purpose - Since the appeal has been filed before the Commissioner (A) well beyond the period, which he is empowered to condone, the appeal has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (A) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal challenging customs duty assessment.
2. Requirement of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Authority to condone delay in filing appeal.
4. Acceptance of value enhancement by the agent.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods for supply of smart positioners to a company and faced an enhanced customs duty assessment by the Customs Authorities. The appellant paid the duty and cleared the goods. The appeal against the assessment was dismissed by the Commissioner (A) due to a delay of 16 months, which was beyond the Commissioner's power to condone. The appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal.

2. The appellant argued that under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, any assessment contrary to the importer's claim must be followed by a speaking order within 15 days. As no speaking order was issued by the Customs Authorities, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the assessment before the Commissioner (A). The appellant cited precedents, including a decision of the Karnataka High Court, to support the argument that the assessing authority is obligated to issue a speaking order.

3. The Customs Authorities enhanced the value of the imported goods without issuing a speaking order. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not protest against the assessment at the time of import. The delay of 16 months in filing the appeal was considered beyond the condonable period. Referring to the decision in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jameshpur, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision to reject the appeal due to the delay.

4. The Tribunal observed that the appellant could have requested re-assessment of the Bill of Entry or challenged it before the First Appellate Authority within the prescribed time. The acceptance of the value enhancement by the agent on behalf of the importer was deemed binding. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal.