2023 (11) TMI 1091 - HC - Customs

Validity of provisional assessment order - direction to execute bond and furnish bank guarantee for release of the goods imported by the petitioner - Violation of Customs Act or not - HELD THAT - The order impugned cannot be said to be without jurisdiction even if the order can be said to be against some provisions of the law. When there is provision of appeal, this Court would not assume the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is against the law. If the order impugned is not without jurisdiction or it is not in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court would not entertain the writ petition merely on the ground that in the opinion of the petitioner, the order runs contrary to some provision of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is permitted to file appeal against the impugned order within a period of fifteen days from today and the appellate authority should consider the same expeditiously in accordance with the law - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the provisional assessment order imposing Customs Duty, the requirement of executing a bond and furnishing a bank guarantee for release of imported goods, and the petitioner's challenge to the assessment order.

Provisional Assessment Order:
The petitioner imported Sri Lankan areca nuts and submitted a bill of entry for provisional assessment. The assessment was done by the Faceless Assessment Authority with IGST at 12% instead of 5% as claimed by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's requests for revision, the final order (Exhibit P-14) imposed Customs Duty of Rs. 8,82,123 and required the petitioner to execute a bond and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,85,24,592 for the release of the goods.

Legal Challenge and Court's Decision:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the provisional assessment order. The Court noted that while the order may be against some provisions of the law, it cannot be considered without jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that when there is a provision for appeal, it would not assume the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority solely based on the order being against the law. As the order was not without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice principles, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was granted permission to file an appeal within fifteen days, with the directive for the appellate authority to consider it promptly and in accordance with the law.