By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 01, 2014: THESE are the views of the Member (Technical) -

++ Every organization (including this Tribunal) has its own procedure to process various documents. This process takes its own time.

++ Like in the present case, this Tribunal's order is required to be examined in the Custom House at different levels and finally a decision has to be taken whether to accept the order of the Tribunal or challenge the same before the Hon'ble Court and also whether to file stay petition.

++ We must respect the procedure being followed in every organization and also not put any organization in different direction or change their priority.

++ Of course, if any lower authority is not implementing orders passed by this Tribunal, appellant can bring that to the notice of the Tribunal and there are adequate provisions and powers with this Tribunal to ensure implementation of its order.

++ However, directing the lower authority to implement the order in a particular time frame at the time of issuing order itself is not appropriate.

++ Such a direction of the Tribunal would be affecting the normal working of the Custom House and also put avoidable and uncalled pressure on officers dealing with the subject.

++ I, therefore, do not agree with the direction of the Ld. Brother to implement this order within 30 days of its communication.

All this happened because in the matter of an appeal filed by the importer requesting for re-assessment of Bill of Entry, the Member (Judicial) held -

"6. …In this case, the fact that the appellant has paid the excess duty is not in dispute as the price of the impugned item was 0.04 CHF which was invoiced wrongly by the supplier as 4.04 CHF and the appellant has also received the excess amount paid to the supplier by way of Credit Note. The purchase order as well as the invoice were available at the time of filing the Bill of entry. In these circumstances, as per the CBEC Manual, amendment in Bill of entry is required to be allowed although goods have been given out of charge. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The adjudicating authority is directed to implement this order within 30 days of its communication."

Nonetheless, the Member (Technical) while agreeing with the conclusion of the Member (Judicial) added that the proposed amendment in the Bill of Entry is of such a nature that it has no implication with the physical examination of the goods and hence can be allowed even after out of charge.

The reason for the gripe, perhaps…is because there is no request from the appellant for providing a time limit.

Sympathy - called or uncalled for: Now, what happens next…?

(See 2014-TIOL-1167-CESTAT-MUM)