Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 460 - AT - CustomsSeeking amendment in the bills of entry - Goods imported “Fitbit Wearable Devices” - Whether a direction should be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to decide pending application filed u/s 149? - Refund of customs duty wrongly paid - HELD THAT:- Once an application for amendment has been filed, it is the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to decide it in view of the specific provisions contained u/s 149 of the Customs Act and the said application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. It is not open to the department to raise a plea in this appeal that a direction should not be issued by the Tribunal for deciding the appellant as it may ultimately lead to a situation that the application filed by the appellant u/s 149 of the Customs Act would remain undecided as the Deputy Commissioner will not decide and the Tribunal cannot issue a direction. A statutory duty is cast upon the Deputy Commissioner to decide the application at the earliest and the said application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. It is the contention of the appellant that the application for amendment of the Bills of Entry u/s 149 of the Customs Act was filed on 11.07.2019, but it has not been decided as yet and in fact the Commissioner (Appeals) before whom a direction was sought also refused to grant such a relief holding that such a power is not vested in him under the provisions of the Customs Act. It would, therefore, be appropriate that in case the application has already not been decided, it should be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of this order before the Deputy Commissioner. Such a direction is necessary as the application was filed in the year 2019 and almost more than three years have lapsed. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
|