PIJUSH BANIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an exporter/importer through the Land Custom Stations in Tripura and he carries on his business under name and style of M/s Jagannath Trading, Agartala. On 26.09.2020, the petitioner had imported soybean oil measuring 97,600 litre in 6,100 cartons from Bangladesh vide Bill of Entry No.659600/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020-21 dated 26.09.2020 through the Agartala Land Customs Station. At the time of entry to India through the said land customs station along with the Bill of Entry [Annexure-1 to the writ petition], the petitioner had submitted all other requisite import documents. The goods were directed to be ware housed without assessing the duty under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the respondent No.3. Section 17 of the Customs Act 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 also the self-assessment of the duty for the goods. For that purpose, the proper officer examine or test any imported goods provided that selection of cases for verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation. The proper officer may require the importer to produce any document or information and on such requisition, the importer shall produce such document or information. If it is found on verification, examination or testing of the goods or otherwise, the self assessment as done was not done correctly, the proper officer may without any prejudice to any other action which may be taken under the said Act, reassess the duty leviable on such goods. The importer may confirm his acceptance of reassessment in writing. The proper officer shall pass the speaking order for reassessment within fifteen days from the date of reassessment of the Bill of Entry.

(2.) The respondents have admittedly initiated a verification regarding the Certificate of Origin produced by the petitioner for availing the concessional rate of customs duty. Though the respondents are at liberty to initiate verification, but they cannot hold up the assessment/clearance for an indefinite period without passing an order following the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The petitioner has seriously alleged that he has been left remediless as the respondents have not passed any order. According to him, clearance of goods should have been allowed following the provisions under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act 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 said Act. Reassessment could not have been denied for indefinite period for such freely importable goods particularly when the goods are of perishable nature. In these circumstances, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondent authorities to assess/clear the soybean oil imported under the Bill of Entry dated 26.09.2020 within a period as would be set up by this court. Further, it has been urged that the respondent authorities be directed to follow the direction of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) as embodied in their notification No.99/2011 dated 09.11.2011 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] for purpose of Turant clearance of the goods as per provisions of law.