2018 (9) TMI 591 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - re-assessment of Bill of Entry on the basis of the declared invoice value - Held that - The issues decided by the order dated June 18, 2014 are final so far as the petitioner and the department is concerned in respect of the eight bills of entries. It is incumbent upon the department to act in terms of order dated June 18, 2014. The subsequent action of the petitioner or the department does not obviate compliance of the order dated June 18, 2014. All steps taken subsequent to June 18, 2014 in violation of the direction contain therein are, therefore, nullity - the assessing officer is directed to comply with the direction contained in the order dated June 18, 2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner challenging refusal of respondents to act as per direction in order dated June 18, 2014 by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); Department's contention on petitioner's application for refund post the said order.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the refusal of the respondents to act in accordance with the direction contained in the order dated June 18, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioner contended that the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the order of assessment and directing the lower authority to re-assess the Bill of Entry based on the declared invoice value. Despite the dismissal of the department's appeal in 2016, the authorities failed to comply with the said order, leading the petitioner to approach the court seeking enforcement of the directive.

2. The department argued that the petitioner had applied for a refund subsequent to the order dated June 18, 2014, and the assessing officer had already adjudicated upon the refund application. The department contended that since the appeal on the refund application had been disposed of, the petitioner had no cause of action to approach the court. Furthermore, the authorities had issued a show cause notice in this regard.

3. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the relevant materials on record. It was noted that the order dated June 18, 2014 had set aside the assessment orders for eight bills of entries and directed the reassessment based on the declared invoice value. Despite the failure of both the petitioner and the department to act in accordance with this direction, the issues decided by the said order remained final and binding on them.

4. The Court emphasized that the department was obligated to comply with the direction contained in the order dated June 18, 2014, and any subsequent actions taken in violation of this directive were deemed null and void. Therefore, the assessing officer was directed to adhere to the directive of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as per the said order, ensuring lawful compliance with the reassessment based on the declared invoice value for the concerned bills of entries.

5. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 7 of 2018 in accordance with the above findings. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding the directions issued by the appellate authority and ensuring compliance with legal directives in customs matters to maintain the integrity and legality of assessment procedures.