IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7552 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.ADI ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR BHANDAR ALI, PAPDY, VASI WEST, THANE, MAHARASHTRA BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, W/ISLAND COCHIN-9 ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7552 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner firm had imported fast moving consumer goods having RITC Code No.33049910 through Cochin Port and filed bill of entry No.259895 dated 21/12/2009. At the time when the Bill of Entry was issued the petitioner submitted invoice issued by overseas supplier showing value of the goods as 35201.32 US dollar equivalent to Rs.16,45,661/-. According to the petitioner without any reason, respondent adopted higher value of Rs.39,59,792.39/- and demanded customs duty of Rs.15,49,615/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Bill of Entry. The petitioner paid customs duty as demanded by respondent on 01/01/2010 which is evidenced by Ext.P2, true copy of the TR6 challan No.99090931 dated 01/01/2010. According to the petitioner, as per the ITC HS classification, Tariff rate of goods imported by the petitioner is only 24.42136 and Ext.P3 is produced in support of the above plea. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent has taken an additional duty at the rate of 16% against some of the goods and an excess amount of Rs.5,24,118/- was taken towards said duty alone. In these W.P.(C)No.7552 of 2010 2 circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondent to rectify the mistake. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has to rectify the mistake. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks for a direction to issue a speaking order with regard to the assessment of duty. Reliance is placed on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court rendered in identical circumstances. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that even the bill of entry is appealable and therefore the petitioner has to file an appeal in the matter. Reliance is placed on decisions of the Appellate Tribunal in Max India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi 2005 (192)ELT 246, Ashoosons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2009(239)ELT 107and State of Goa Vs. Leukoplast (India) Ltd.1997 (92)ELT 19 (SC). 3. It is true that the petitioner could file such an appeal with appropriate petition to condone the delay. But even then there cannot be any objection to pass a speaking order in the matter so that the petitioner will get the benefit of knowing the reasoning and can challenge the same by way of an appeal and W.P.(C)No.7552 of 2010 3 the appellate authority will also be able to consider the matter, after verifying the reasons in support of the levy. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to pass a speaking order in respect of assessment in question, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj