Calcutta High Court
M/S. Phoenix Overseas Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs … on 2 July, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
OD-7
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CUSTOMS)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CUSTA/18/2025
IA No. GA/1/2025
M/S. PHOENIX OVERSEAS LIMITED
VS.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),W.B., KOLKATA
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 2nd July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Prabir Bera, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Rajshree, Adv.
Mr. Anindya Kanan, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court : We have heard Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent/department.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
a) Whether assessment includes self assessment and also re-
assessment and the same cannot be reopened without
preferring appeal against such self assessment and/or re-
assessment thereby, the resort to the provision of Section 28 of
the Customs Act, 1962 is wholly erroneous in law?
b) Whether self assessment, also being an assessment, being
accepted by the department at the time of import has attained
2
finality and has become a final assessment order which is
appealable in nature?
c) Whether the Ld. Tribunal erred in law in not appreciating that
assessment of duty includes self assessment under Section
17(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and upon allowing clearance of
the imported goods, the provisions of Section 17(2) and 17(3)
of the Customs Act, 1962 are deemed to be complied and
under such situation, reopening of assessment and demand of
duty by invoking Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not
permissible and hence the impugned order is perverse?
d) Whether the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that in terms of
the provision of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, the
Adjudication Order No.23/JC(P)/CUS/WB/17-18 dated
22.08.2017, determining the amount of duty or interest and
imposing the penalty was barred by limitation since the import
was made on 27.10.2015, the show cause notice was issued
on 22.07.2016 and the adjudication order was passed on
22.08.2017 and interms of the provisions of clause (a) and
second proviso to clause (b) of Subsection 9 of Section 28 and
as such, the entire proceeding was void ab-initio?
The stay application, IA No. GA/1/2025, stands disposed of.
Though the stay application is formally disposed of, since all the
necessary documents are available in the same, the stay application be
retained with the records and be treated as an informal paper book in this
appeal and filing of informal paper book is dispensed with.
Since the respondent is represented by their learned Advocate, service
of notice of appeal upon them is waived.
Since the appeal has been admitted on the abovementioned
substantial questions of law, the Department is restrained from initiating
3
any coercive action against the appellant for recovery of the amount of duty
as demanded in the order of adjudication.
List this appeal on 19th August, 2025.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
SM