hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1296 OF 2009 J.J. Poly Impex ... Petitioner Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Customs ... Respondent Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Divya Bahl and Mr. Siddhesh Bhole and Mr. Yashpal M. Jain for Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2009 P.C. Rule. Head forthwith. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of reassessment done by Respondent No. 1. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that while doing the reassessment, Respondent No. 1 has followed the standing order as if the standing order was binding on respondent No. 1 ignoring the material placed by the Petitioner before Respondent No. 1. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 193 (SC). Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents by Arun Kohok, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group II, C. & D, JNCH. In Paragraph No. 5 of the said affidavit it is set out that the Petitioner had filed bills of entries for home consumption in respect of the said consignments. The said bills of entries were assessed after loading declared value based on flat price as per customs standing order No. 7493/99. Again thereafter in Paragraph No. 5 it has been reiterated that the assessment has been made after loading declared value as per standing Order No. 7493/99 which is binding on the assessing department. After considering the stand of the department, we may only gainfully reproduce the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Varsha (supra). “20. As a matter of fact, it is the case of the Department as well that the impugned Standing Order is not binding; it is just in the nature of guidelines to streamline the functioning of Customs Officers at various field formations. According to the Department, the impugned Standing Order was issued for the smooth functioning of assessment and examination work and to bring about uniformity in the work and it prescribes only pattern of assessment and in no way, interferes with the discretion of the Assessment Authority. In view of the categorical stand of the Department that the impugned Standing Order is just in the nature of guidelines and it does not in any way interfere with the discretion of officers, the impugned Standing Order has to be read and understood accordingly.” It is therefore, clear that the standing orders are merely guidelines and not binding or effect the discretion of the officers. It is in that context that the respondent No. 1 ought to have considered the material placed before by the Petitioner before making order of reassessment. The Petitioner has come to this court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction, considering the stand of the respondents, that standing orders are binding and as such no point will be served in moving the forums available under the Act. Normally we would not have interfered in an exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction when an alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner. However, considering that the relevant standing order namely No. 7493 of 1999 dated 3.12.1999 was the subject matter for consideration in Varha Plastics, the action of the Respondent in not considering the judgment, results in failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. In our opinion, the ends of justice, therefore will be met considering the circumstances, if the Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter restored to the file of Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration for considering the material placed by the Petitioner herein. We have taken this view on the facts of this case. The entire exercise to be completed within four months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly. We make it clear that until such time as the matter is reconsidered and a fresh order is passed, the Petitioner will not apply for refund of the duty already paid. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)