The customs authorities have the power and jurisdiction to make corrections of any clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising in any decision or order due to any accidental slip or omission at any time, including an order of self-assessment post out of charge.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the respondents to reassess the customs duty in respect of Bills of Entry Nos. 2434172, 2436049, 2522910, 2805152 and 2968920 (annexed as Annexure B colly. to the writ petition) by correcting the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) from 85176990 to 85176930.

3. Facts lie within a narrow compass. However to put the matter in proper perspective relevant facts are briefy stated hereunder.

4. Petitioner is an importer and by the fve Bills of Entry Nos. 2434172, 2436049, 2522910, 2805152 and 2968920 had imported 48 units of routers between 15.03.2019 to 25.04.2019. Details of the Bills of Entry are as under:

5. During internal audit, it realised that it had made inadvertent typographical error at the time of fling the Bills of Entry by incorrectly declaring the CTH as 85176990' instead of correct CTH 85176930'. It is stated that for goods under CTH 85176930, rate of duty is NIL whereas in respect of goods under CTH 85176990, rate of duty is 20%. Because of such inadvertent error, petitioner had to make excess payment of basic customs duty to the extent of Rs.14,50,01,413.00.

6. Immediately on detecting the inadvertent error, petitioner submitted a letter dated 07.06.2019 before respondent No.2 requesting correction in the Bills of Entry. Petitioner received a communication dated 25.10.2019 from respondent No.2 declining the request as the petitioner had not obtained an order of re-assessment or appealed against the self-assessment done on the Bills of Entry.

7. Petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 21.11.2019 requesting respondent No.2 to pass a reassessment order in terms of section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly "the Customs Act" hereinafter) read with section 149 of the said Act by making suitable modification to the Bills of Entry. This was followed by several reminders, oral as well as written. However, respondent No.2 has not taken any decision for re-assessment of the self assessed Bills of Entry.

8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

9. Respondents have filed a common reply affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that petitioner had imported goods declared as routers under five Bills of Entry bearing Nos.2434172, 2436049, 2522910, 2805152 and 2968920. The Bills of Entry were facilitated under the Risk Management System (RMS) with no assessment and no examination. It is stated that petitioner had self assessed the Bills of Entry in terms of section 17 of the Customs Act and had classified the goods under CTH 85176990' instead of 85176930' because of which it now claims of having made excess payment of customs duty.

9.1 Regarding request of the petitioner for reassessment of the Bills of Entry, stand taken is that respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner that consequent upon amendment to section 17 of the Customs Act made in the year 2011, concept of 'self-assessment' has been introduced in the Customs Act effective from 08.04.2011 which provides for self-assessment of duty on imported goods by the importer himself by fling Bill of Entry in the electronic form. Therefore, burden is on the importer to ensure that he declares the correct classification and applies the correct rate of customs duty.

9.2 The Bills of Entry in question were assessed by the petitioner and such Bills of Entry upon self-assessment itself would be an order of assessment. However,