GORAMAL HARIRAM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K .K. Usha, President 1. These appeals arise out of a Common Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Appeal No. HKS (807 and 808) ICD/2001, dated 26 -9 -2001 filed by the appellant. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has not opted for any provisional assessment in the case and that he did not file application within three months of the order of appraisement nor did file appeal within three months of obtaining a speaking order on his letter of protest.

(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the appellant that in spite of repeated request the authorities issued no speaking order and, therefore, there was no justification in the Commissioner (Appeals) finding fault with the appellant in not filing the appeals after obtaining speaking orders. We heard learned Departmental Representative also.

(3.) IT is true that the appellant could have filed an application under Section 27 instead of making request for an appealable order. If the duty has been paid under protest there is no period of limitation in filing an application under Section 27 claiming refund of duty. From the facts before us we take the view that the duty had been paid under protest. Admittedly no reply was given to the appellant to the letters sent by him requesting for appealable order. The recipient of the letter could have certainly informed the latter that his remedy lies elsewhere. It is unfortunate that officers discharging public duty do not realize that their inaction can drive citizens to unnecessary litigation.