The court held that delays in customs assessment require timely procedures under the Customs Act to protect importers against indefinite holds of their goods.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The appellant herein has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.

(C).No.38741/2023.

2. The brief facts necessary of the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant had preferred the writ petition aforementioned impugning the provisional assessment order (Ext.P14) that directed the appellant to deposit customs duty to the extent of ₹1,76,42,468/- and IGST in an amount of ₹8,82,123/- as a condition for release of the imported goods. The appellant had imported 27 metric tonnes of Sri Lankan arecanut through Kochi Port and filed a bill of entry dated 12.10.2023 for clearing the same. The appellant had in the bill of entry claimed the benefit of exemption under notification 26/2000 by which arecanuts imported from Sri Lanka were entitled to a complete exemption from basic customs duty.

3. The respondents however, provisionally assessed the imported goods at the tariff rate of 100% basic customs duty by provisionally denying the benefit of the aforementioned exemption notification to the appellant. It is significant that while completing the provisional assessment and demanding the differential customs duty, there was no mention made of the reasons that weighed with the customs authorities for demanding the differential duty. This is notwithstanding the fact that along with the bill of entry, the appellant/importer had submitted the necessary certificate of origin to prove that the arecanuts imported were of Sri Lankan origin. In terms of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 if the proper officer of the Customs has reasons to believe that the country of origin criteria has not been met, he can require the importer to furnish further information, consistent with the respective trade agreements, in the manner provided by the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 (for short 'the Rules 2020'). As per Section 28DA (4), where an importer fails to provide the requisite information, for any reason, the proper officer may cause further verification consistent with the trade agreement, in such manner as may be provided by the Rules 2020. In that event, the provisions of Section 28DA (5) also provide that pending further verification, the proper officer may on the request of the importer, release the goods subject to furnishing by the importer of a security amount equal to the difference between the duty provisionally assessed and the preferential duty claimed.

4. It would appear that, in the instant case, while the appellant had filed the bill of entry as early as on 18.10.2023 and the provisional assessments as evidenced by Exts.P8 and P14 were completed the very next day, there was a demand for the differential customs duty in an amount of ₹1,85,24,592/- by the Customs authorities without furnishing any reason for the said demand. This prompted the appellant/importer to prefer Exts. P11, P12 and P13 letters dated 13.10.2023, 16,10,2023 and 26.10.2023 to the customs authorities seeking a clarification as to why the preferential duty claimed by him was not found acceptable by the customs authorities. It is rather surprising that the said letters did not evoke any response from the customs authorities. The provocation for the writ petition appears to have been the exasperation of the appellant/importer on not hearing anything from the customs authorities for well over two months on the issue of finalisation of the provisional assessment. In the writ petition, the prayer of the appellant was for a direction to the respondents to finally assess Ext.P8 bill of entry within a particular time frame or in the al