9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the part of the proper officer to comply with the legal provisions cannot be held to the detriment of the importer. Even assuming a determined obduracy on the part of the proper officer to defy this legal requirement, the period stipulated for issue of such speaking order is fifteen days from the date of reassessment. It has been noted by the first appellate authority that the appeals were filed on the 91st and 105th day from the date of assessment which, in the present instance, is re-assessment. The appeals would certainly be within the period permitted for doing so if the relevant date is construed as date on which the re-assessment is deemed to be completed with the expiry of the period stipulated for issue of speaking order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment and, hence, beyond his legal competence to entertain. It is settled law that an assessed bill of entry can be appealed against. However, the relevant date, in the context of amendment to section 17 of Customs Act, 1962, by Act 8 of 2011 in section 38 with effect from 8th April 2011 mandating that (5) Where any re--assessment done under sub-section (4) is contrary to the self-assessment done by the importer or exporter regarding valuation of goods, classification, exemption or concessions of duty availed consequent to any no notification issued therefor under this Act and in cases other than those where the importer or exporter, as the case may be, confirms his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing, the proper offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would continue to be bereft of the wisdom that prompted the proper officer to discard self-assessment and to re-assess the imported goods. Hence, a remand to the first appellate authority to proceed with disposal on merits would serve no purpose but would also be tantamount to abetting in deliberate defiance of the legal mandate on the part of the original authority. Such casual disregard of the legal obligations, often prompted by intent to shirk responsibility, should not be encouraged, at least, by this appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order as well as the assessments in the bills of entry and remand the matter back to the original authority to rectify the breach of law and issue a speaking order justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
