2024 (9) TMI 473 - HC - Customs

Mandamus to issue speaking order in respect of Bills of Entry - petitioner has sent a representation asking the respondent to pass speaking orders, which was not done - alternate remedy under Section 121(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - A reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held 'Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can use take judicial notice of the fat that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. This practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' The petitioner deserves a chance in the light of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1961. As per Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, where any re-assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment by an importer or exporter, the proper officer shall pass a speaking order on the re-assessment, within fifteen days from the date of re-assessment of the bill of entry or the shipping bill, as the case may be. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mandamus to issue speaking order in respect of Bills of Entry.
2. Availability of alternate remedy under Section 121(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding re-assessment and speaking order.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed seeking a Mandamus to issue a speaking order in relation to Bills of Entry. The petitioner, an importer of goods, had self-assessed the Bill of Entries, but the assessment conducted by the authorities was contrary to the petitioner's self-assessment. Despite the petitioner's representation requesting a speaking order, none was issued, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The respondent contended that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 121(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of not bypassing statutory procedures unless absolutely necessary.

The court considered the arguments of both parties and noted the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. This section mandates that if a re-assessment is contrary to the importer's self-assessment and the importer does not confirm acceptance in writing, a speaking order must be passed within fifteen days. The court found that the petitioner deserved a chance based on this provision. The court highlighted the importance of statutory remedies in revenue matters and the need to discourage the misuse of Article 226 for obtaining interim orders. Despite the respondent's argument for dismissal, the court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court's decision was in favor of the petitioner, granting the relief sought without imposing any costs.