2018 (1) TMI 178 - HC - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 2/2007 - duty payable on edible oil - non-speaking order - Held that - the respondent should pass a speaking order on the request made by the petitioner or else the petitioner would be left without a remedy. If the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for, the respondent should say so by passing a speaking order - this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions to the respondents, however, not inclined to issue any positive direction at this juncture. Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner s representation dated 22.11.2008 and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of Bills of Entry to extend benefit of Notification No.2/2007 under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to amend the Bills of Entry filed on specific dates to avail the benefit of Notification No.2/2007 dated 05.01.2007 under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that as per the notification, no duty was payable on the imported goods, and thus, a refund was claimed. A representation was made in 2008, referencing relevant legal decisions, but no action was taken by the respondents. The Revenue's argument was that the petitioner should have appealed against the duty assessment at the time, and without an appeal, the application for refund was not sustainable. However, the court noted that the respondents had not responded to the petitioner's representation since 2008, leading to a stalemate. The court emphasized the need for the respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's request to provide clarity on the relief sought.

The court acknowledged the factual scenario and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.11.2008 and pass a speaking order on merits within eight weeks, affording an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative. The court highlighted the importance of resolving the matter without leaving the petitioner without a remedy and emphasized the need for a decision to be made by the respondents, either in favor or against the relief sought. The court refrained from issuing a positive direction at that moment but stressed the necessity for the respondents to address the petitioner's claim promptly and in accordance with the law.