9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r such inaction has been disclosed. Under South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) arrangement, the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued notification dated 09.11.2011 allowing nil duty of customs on most of the goods imported from Bangladesh under SAFTA. Galvanized Steel Sheet in coil also attracts no custom duty. As no order disclosing the reasons for warehousing the imported goods has been passed, the petitioner had been left remediless. The clearance of goods should have been allowed following the provisions under Sections 17 or 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 either accepting the concessional rate of duty as claimed by the petitioner under self-assessment or rejecting it by doing re-assessment under Section 17 of the said Act. 2. Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides the procedure for assessment of duty. The proper officer may verify the entries made under Section 46 or Section 50 of the Customs Act and may allow the self-assessment of the duty for the goods. The verification by the proper officer shall primarily be done on the basis of risk evaluation. The proper officer may require the importer to produce any document or informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Area (SAFTA) Tariff concession. 5. The petitioner has emphatically submitted that he has become remediless, as the respondent authority has not passed any order at all. According to the petitioner, the clearance of goods should have been allowed following the provisions of Sections 17 or 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, either accepting the concessional rate of duty as claimed by the petitioner under self assessment or rejecting it or by doing reassessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act. The petitioner has quite succinctly submitted that the assessment could not have been denied for an indefinite period for such freely importable goods. Hence, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to release the goods imported under the Bill of Entry dated 26.12.2020 and to direct the respondent authorities to provisionally assess the duty under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 without requiring bank guarantee considering the import of the goods not placed under verification under Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020.. 6. Mr. N. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020 which mandates verifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his court in Pijush Banik versus Union of India and Others [judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 delivered in WP (C) No. 855/2020] wherein this court had occasion to observe as follows : "It is apparent that when the verification was initiated, no record was available with the respondents nor any communication was made to the petitioner that the verification was being carried out under Rule 6(1)(a) or Rule 6(1)(b) or Rule 6 (4)(c) of the CAROTAR 2020 and hence, there was no reference to the security (BG). However, from the records as produced [which are the posterior records] such as the communication dated 30.10.2020 [Annexure-3 to the reply filed by the respondent No.3] and the communication dated 24.11.2020 [Annexure-D to the reply filed by the respondent No.3] or the communication dated 20.11.2020 [Annexure-E to the reply filed by the respondent No.3], it appears to this court that verification is on 'mis-declaration'. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to meet the purported deficiency for which the clearance has been refused. No observation on the legality or regularity of the process of verification on merit is called for at this stage, considering that the veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e minimum value addition is 40%. They have categorically denied that the petitioner was pressurized for submitting bank guarantee. The petitioner has not furnished any bank guarantee as stated by him. Thus, the allegation that the petitioner was not taken on board is gross distortion of fact. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred to the communication dated 20.12.2020 [Annexure-B to the reply] where it has been categorically disclosed that the Assistant Commissioner, on scrutiny of the cost break-up, forwarded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (P)NER, Shillong in order to verify the Certificate of Origin in terms of the Rule 6 of the CAROTAR, 2020. The petitioner was apprised that he might opt for provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 for purpose of release on furnishing the security till the issue is settled. A separate notice dated 01.10.2020 [Annexure-D to the reply] had been issued to the petitioner asking him to produce all supportive documents to justify his claim within ten days. On 17.10.2020 the petitioner was informed by the communication that "the goods may be released provisionally on payment of differential duty of bank guarantee/cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
