Delhi High Court
M/S Technology Next Through Its ... vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Acc ... on 14 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2674/2024
M/S TECHNOLOGY NEXT THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SH. ASHIM GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ACC IMPORT,
NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Krishna Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Ms.
Maninder Kaur and Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Mr. Anand Pandey
and Mr. Ritivik Saha, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to sanction and grant
refund of excess duty of Rs.8,42,518/-.
2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of internet
networking equipment.
3. The Petitioner vide Bill of Entry No. 5709318 dated 16.11.2019
had imported networking equipment whereby the Assessing Authority
changed the classification for certain items, thereby attracting a larger
percentage of customs duty than the previous classification.
4. In view of the same, Petitioner had requested the Assessing
Authority to reassess the Bill of Entry and issue a speaking order.
However, the Assessing Authority neither reassessed the Bill of Entry
nor passed any speaking order. Further, Petitioner paid Rs.8,42,518/-
as customs duty to clear the consignment.
5. Aggrieved by such assessment, the Petitioner filed an appeal.
The said appeal was decided vide order dated 31.10.2022 wherein the
appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the
Assessing Authority with directions to pass a speaking order after
giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the adjudicating
proceedings are still pending before the competent authority and
assures that the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order in appeal
was passed on 31.10.2022 and till date the adjudicating authority has
not disposed of the proceedings. He further submits that the impugned
order which records that the Notification dated 10.12.2019 was made
effective from 01.01.2020 seems to suggest that the bill of entry
lodged by the petitioner was filed after the Notification came into
force. He submits that bill of entry was filed on 16.11.2019 before the
Notification admittedly came into force on 01.01.2020.
8. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for respondent,
the petition is disposed of directing the adjudicating authority to
dispose of the proceedings expeditiously within a period of six weeks
from today after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. It is clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to avail of
such further remedies as may be permissible in law in case petitioner
is aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondents.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MARCH 14, 2024
'rs'
