2023 (8) TMI 364 - HC - Customs

Scope and power of the authority under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 - each and every kind of omission or error arising from an accidental slip permitted to re-visit the order of assessment passed by the competent officer - HELD THAT - The authorities have accepted the order of remand passed by the appellate authority on the first occasion and proceeded thereupon and therefore, it is too late in the day to take such a plea at an advance stage of the litigation which is practically a second round of litigation, though commenced from the original cause. A further argument is advanced by appellant that it is a paramount duty of the exporter to make a self-assessment of the duty as envisaged under Section 17 of the said Act. The reliance appears to have been placed upon Sub-section (1) of Section 17 which is misplaced for the simple reason that Section 17 has undergone a radical change by way of an amendment (Act 8 of 2011) with effect from 08.04.2011. The instant case pertains to transactions of export prior to 2011 and therefore, the Section which stood as on the date of such export has to be applied which does not mandate the exporter to self-assess the duty by submitting the shipping bills. The amended provisions cannot be pressed in action in relation to transactions prior to coming in force thereof unless the amending Act clearly provides the applicability of such amended provisions to operate retrospectively or by necessary implications. In absence of any such mandate in an amending Act, the law cannot be perceived to operate retrospectively but to operate prospectively i.e. from the date when it came into existence and/or was enforced. The law is always to be look forward and not backward. There is no fetter on the part of the legislature to express any amendment of the law to operate retrospectively. There are no question of law, far less to speak of substantial question of law, involved in the instant appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the scope and power of the authority under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, the interpretation of the word 'omission' in relation to Customs duty assessment, and the applicability of Section 17 of the Customs Act for self-assessment of duty by exporters.

Scope and Power of Authority under Section 154:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to decide the levy of Customs duty in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's observations on the scope of Section 154 exceeded jurisdiction. However, the Court found that after a decade-long proceeding, it was not convinced by the appellant's arguments. The Court emphasized that the error or omission in Section 154 should not be narrowly construed but should encompass errors arising from accidental slips or omissions.

Interpretation of 'Omission' in Customs Duty Assessment:
The respondents exported goods attracting Customs duty and applied for rectification under Section 154, citing an error in assessment by the authority. The appellate authority, based on Supreme Court judgments, considered the error as falling within the purview of Section 154. The department did not challenge the order of remand, and the matter was reconsidered, leading to conflicting decisions by the authorities. The Court held that errors arising from accidental slips or omissions should be broadly interpreted and not restricted to a narrow definition of 'omission.'

Applicability of Section 17 for Self-Assessment by Exporters:
The appellant argued that exporters have a duty to self-assess duty under Section 17 of the Act. However, the Court noted that Section 17 underwent significant amendments in 2011, not applicable to transactions before that date. The Court emphasized that amended provisions cannot be retroactively applied unless mandated by the amending Act. The Court highlighted the principle of prospectivity in law, stating that unless expressly provided, amendments operate from their enforcement date. Consequently, the Court found no substantial legal question in the appeal and dismissed it along with the connected application.