The Bombay High Court reiterated that it is the duty of the Customs Authorities to decide the importer’s claim by passing a speaking order. Essentially, the Court explained that, by not passing such speaking orders or by delaying their passing, the Customs Authorities cannot frustrate the importers’ right of an effective redressal to appeal or other remedies.
Accordingly, the Court directed the customs authorities to pass speaking orders as expeditiously as possible, and reprimanded the respondent officers by imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the petitioner, within four weeks, as a punishment for dereliction in the discharge of the statutory duty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna observed that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s remand order binds the proper officer, in terms of which the speaking order should have been made within a reasonable period. As the respondent (proper officer) has not passed any speaking orders, the Bench deprecated such action as a gross dereliction of the duty.
As there was no justification for the respondents either not to pass the speaking orders or to delay their passing unreasonably, more so, when apart from the statutory duty, they were bound by the remand order made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Bench found it fit to impose costs upon the respondent officers for dereliction in the discharge of their statutory duty.
Briefly, the petitioner vide 19 Bills of Entry, had imported dates through different exporters. However, during the assessment, the proper officer increased the value of the imported goods and demanded additional customs duty. This was alleged as arbitrary by the petitioner, contending that no cogent reasons were supplied for such enhancement. Though, notwithstanding the arbitrariness involved, since the imported goods were perishable in nature, the petitioner, under protest, paid the enhanced levy amounting to Rs. 46 lacs.
On appeal challenging the enhanced assessment and leave of duty on the imported goods, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the proper officer for passing speaking orders under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that despite the remand order, the multiple reminders, and the clear legal position of the subject, the proper officer has failed to pass any such speaking order to date.
Appearances:
Advocates Prathamesh Chavan and Channdi Tanna, for the Petitioner
Advocates Sangeeta Yadav and Karan Adik, for the Respondent
