2025 (1) TMI 1106 - HC - Customs

Challenge to assessment order - seeking release of the bank guarantee - import of consignment of gold jewellery from Indonesia - benefit of exemption N/N. 46/2011-CU dated 01st June 2011 and N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 7th March 2012 - HELD THAT - There can be no doubt about two facts firstly that the Division Bench judgment 2023 (12) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT had to be complied with and the Customs Department could not hold back compliance thereof by directing adjustment in the final order. Such a course of action would not be permissible. Secondly insofar as the impugned order is concerned the same is an appealable order. Delay in passing the impugned assessment order is a ground on which the Petitioner seeks to challenge the same. The ground of delay can also be raised in the appeal. The appellate forum would then consider the reliefs sought in the first writ petition also while deciding whether there was delay. This Court is also not to go into computation in terms of the impugned order. That would be a factual determination. Since the impugned order is appealable this Court does not wish to go into merits of the order or the aspect of delay. The Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 23rd February 2024 within a period of 30 days from today along with requisite pre-deposit in terms of the Act - Petition disposed off.

2023 (12) TMI 697 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the Customs Department was justified in delaying the finalization of the provisional assessment and the release of the bank guarantee.
Whether the final assessment order dated 23rd February, 2024, was validly issued given the alleged delay and procedural lapses.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the bank guarantee amount due to the delay in finalization of the provisional assessment.
The appropriate legal recourse for the petitioner in light of the impugned assessment order.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Delay in Finalization of Provisional Assessment and Release of Bank Guarantee

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court considered the obligations of the Customs Department under the Customs Act, 1962, particularly regarding the timely finalization of provisional assessments.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Customs Department's delay in finalizing the provisional assessment and releasing the bank guarantee was unjustified and arbitrary, especially since the necessary verification of the COO Certificates had been completed in 2016.
Key Evidence and Findings: The delay was attributed to the Customs Department's inaction despite having the required verification results since 2016.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles of administrative efficiency and fairness, concluding that the department's inaction was an arbitrary exercise of power.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the delay was justified was dismissed due to lack of legal impediments or valid reasons for the delay.
Conclusions: The court directed the release of the bank guarantee and awarded interest at 6% per annum from 17th March 2016.

Issue 2: Validity of Final Assessment Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Act, 1962, and principles of natural justice regarding timely issuance of assessment orders were considered.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not delve into the merits of the final assessment order, noting that it was an appealable order and the delay could be addressed in the appellate forum.
Key Evidence and Findings: The order was issued following the court's directive to finalize the provisional assessment.
Application of Law to Facts: The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to pursue the appeal process for any grievances regarding the assessment order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument about delay but directed them to raise it in the appeal.
Conclusions: The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within 30 days, and the appellate body was instructed to consider the delay argument.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Interest on Bank Guarantee

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced the earlier judgment that awarded interest due to the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court upheld the previous decision awarding interest, emphasizing the arbitrary nature of the delay.
Key Evidence and Findings: The interest was calculated from the date the verification results were shared with the Customs Department.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles of fairness in awarding interest to compensate for the delay.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's failure to comply with the earlier judgment was noted, and the court reiterated the need for compliance.
Conclusions: The court ordered the release of the bank guarantee with interest, independent of the appeal process.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The indolence exhibited by the respondents is rendered wholly arbitrary."
Core Principles Established: Administrative bodies must act promptly and fairly in finalizing provisional assessments and releasing securities.
Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The Customs Department must release the bank guarantee with interest, irrespective of the final assessment order.
The petitioner is entitled to pursue an appeal against the assessment order, with the appellate body considering the delay argument.
Compliance with court orders is mandatory, and failure to do so may result in personal liability for concerned officials.

← Previous Next →