2024 (3) TMI 1252 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to sanction and grant refund of excess duty - imports networking equipment - Non speaking order - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order in appeal was passed on 31.10.2022 and till date the adjudicating authority has not disposed of the proceedings. He further submits that the impugned order which records that the Notification dated 10.12.2019 was made effective from 01.01.2020 seems to suggest that the bill of entry lodged by the petitioner was filed after the Notification came into force. He submits that bill of entry was filed on 16.11.2019 before the Notification admittedly came into force on 01.01.2020. Thus, the petition is disposed of directing the adjudicating authority to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a period of six weeks from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case include seeking a direction for refund of excess duty, classification change of imported items attracting higher customs duty, failure of Assessing Authority to reassess and issue a speaking order, appeal decision remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority, and delay in adjudicating proceedings.

Refund of Excess Duty:
The petitioner, engaged in trading internet networking equipment, sought a direction for the respondent to sanction and grant a refund of excess duty amounting to Rs. 8,42,518. This request stemmed from the change in classification of imported networking equipment by the Assessing Authority, leading to a higher customs duty percentage than the previous classification. Despite the petitioner's request for reassessment and a speaking order, the Assessing Authority neither reassessed the Bill of Entry nor issued a speaking order. Consequently, the petitioner paid the excess customs duty to clear the consignment.

Remand of Appeal Decision:
Following the petitioner's appeal, a decision was rendered on 31.10.2022, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority. The order mandated the Assessing Authority to pass a speaking order after affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Despite the assurance by the respondent's counsel regarding expeditious disposal of the adjudicating proceedings, there was a delay in the resolution of the matter.

Judicial Direction:
In response to the submissions made by the counsels, the petition was disposed of with a directive for the adjudicating authority to promptly conclude the proceedings within six weeks from the date of the judgment, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner. The judgment clarified the petitioner's right to pursue further legal remedies if dissatisfied with any decisions made by the respondents, preserving the option for additional recourse within the legal framework.