Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2548
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ, CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J
M/S. PHOENIX OVERSEAS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), W.B., KOLKATA – Respondent
CUSTA/18/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Mr. Prabir Bera
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Ms. Aishwarya Rajshree, Mr. Anindya Kanan
The finality of self-assessment under the Customs Act, 1962 limits the Department's ability to reopen assessments without an appeal, confirmed by the Court's findings.
Headnote:The judgment analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Sections 17(1), 28, and 28(9) regarding the self-assessment and reopening of assessments. The appellant challenged certain retrospective actions taken by the Department, arguing the finality of prior assessments and limitation issues based on established facts from 2015. The Court found merit in the legal submissions regarding assessment finality and limitations, thus restraining the Department from coercive actions during the appeal process. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law.
…for the respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/department.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
a) Whether assessment includes self assessment and also re-
assessment and the same cannot be reopened without preferring appeal against such self assessment and/or re- assessment thereby, the resort to the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is wholly erroneous in law?
b) Whether self assessment, also being an assessment, being accepted by the department at the time of import has attained finality and has become a final assessment order which is appealable in nature?
c) Whether the Ld. Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating that assessment of duty includes self assessment under Section 17 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and upon allowing clearance of the imported goods, the provisions of Section 17 (2) and 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 are deemed to be complied and under such situation, reopening of assessment and demand of duty by invoking Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not permissible and hence the impugned order is perverse?
d) Whether the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that in terms of the provision of Section 28 (9) of the Customs Act, 1962 , the Adjudication Order No.23/JC(P)/CUS/WB/17-18 dated 22.08.2017, determining the amount of duty or interest and imposing the penalty was barred by limitation since the import was made on 27.10.2015, the show cause notice was issued on 22.07.2016 and the adjudication order was passed on 22.08.2017 and interms of the provisions of clause (a) and second proviso to clause (b) of Subsection 9 of Section 28 and as such, the entire proceeding was void ab-initio?
The stay application, IA No. GA/1/2025, stands disposed of.
Though the stay application is formally disposed of, since all the necessary documents are available in the same, the stay application be retained with the records and be treated as an informal paper book in this appeal and filing of informal paper book is dispensed with.
Since the respondent is represented by their learned Advocate, service of notice of appeal upon them is waived.
Since the appeal has been admitted on the abovementioned substantial questions of law, the Department is restrained from initiating any coercive action against the appellant for recovery of the amount of duty as demanded in the order of adjudication.
