2010 (3) TMI 663 - HC - Customs

Higher customs duty charged petitioner seeks for a direction to issue a speaking order with regard to the assessment of duty and refund the excess duty collected Held that - to pass a speaking order in respect of assessment in question as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the valuation of imported goods for customs duty assessment.
2. Petitioner seeking a direction for a speaking order and refund of excess duty collected.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Discrepancy in Valuation
The petitioner firm imported goods through Cochin Port and submitted an invoice showing the value of goods as Rs. 3,27,178. However, the respondent adopted a higher value of Rs. 37,70,688, demanding customs duty of Rs. 6,97,982. The petitioner contended that the respondent had erroneously taken a higher value without any valid reason. Despite the petitioner's request to rectify the mistake through a legal notice, no response was received. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in a similar circumstance to support their claim for a correction in the assessment of duty and refund of the excess duty paid.

Issue 2: Direction for Speaking Order and Refund
During the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent argued that the bill of entry is appealable, suggesting that the petitioner should file an appeal instead. Citing decisions of the Appellate Tribunal, the respondent contended that the petitioner's recourse should be through an appeal process. However, the court acknowledged the petitioner's right to challenge the assessment through an appeal and directed the respondent to issue a speaking order regarding the assessment expeditiously. The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for the appellate authority to review the duty assessment based on verified reasons.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to pass a speaking order on the assessment within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment copy. No costs were awarded in this matter.