2022 (2) TMI 1023 - HC - Customs

Classification of goods - subsequent to the assessment of the Bill of Entry, the petitioner has uploaded it representation reaffirming the classification of the imported goods - requirement of speaking order in terms of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly, in this case, after the assessment was finalised, the petitioner has filed an application for registering its protest on 27.08.2021. Though Section 17(5) of the Act contemplates passing of a speaking order within a period of 15 days of reassessment of Bill of Entry or shipping Bill, the issue as to whether the petitioner had to file a declaration under 4016 99 90 or under 8512 90 00 is a matter to be decided by the authority based on the facts that are available before the respondent and the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner to participate in the aforesaid proceedings. Though in the counter, the respondent has stated that a notice of personal hearing has been issued to the petitioner, the date of personal hearing has not been disclosed - the respondent are directed to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under different headings.
2. Requirement of passing a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Delay in issuing the speaking order by the respondent.
4. Legal provisions related to assessment of duty and provisional assessment under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported Wiper Blade Rubber and classified it under heading 4016 99 90, availing benefits under a specific notification. However, the respondent reassessed the goods under a different heading, 8512 90 00, leading to a dispute over the correct classification of the goods.

2. The petitioner argued that when an assessment contradicts the importer's declaration, the respondent must issue a speaking order as per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent's failure to do so prompted the petitioner to file a Writ Petition seeking resolution.

3. The respondent explained that the delay in passing the speaking order was due to the petitioner's subsequent representation and lack of follow-up. A notice of personal hearing was issued to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice, indicating ongoing efforts to address the matter.

4. The legal provisions under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 outline the procedures for assessment of duty and provisional assessment. The Act empowers the proper officer to re-assess duty if the self-assessment is found incorrect, requiring a speaking order in case of contrary re-assessment not accepted by the importer.

5. The court directed the respondent to pass a speaking order within 30 days, allowing the petitioner to present their case fully. All issues were left open for further discussion, emphasizing the importance of due process and ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard. The judgment was concluded, emphasizing compliance with government protocols amid the pandemic.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, legal provisions invoked, and the court's directives for resolution.