Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails the refusal of the respondents in acting in terms of a direction contained in the order dated June 18, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, few bills of the petitioner came up for consideration before the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved, by a decision of the authorities, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Such appeal was disposed of by an order dated June 18, 2014. By such order, the order of assessment was set aside, and the lower authority was directed to re-assess the Bill of Entry on the basis of the declared invoice value. He submits that, the department has preferred an appeal. Such appeal was dismissed in 2016. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated June 18, 2014 becomes binding upon the parties. The petitioner had, thereafter, applied to the authorities for doing the needful in terms of order dated June 18, 2014. However, the assessing officer had considered the application as an application for refund and acted accordingly. The appeal carried therefrom has since been disposed of. He submits that, the assessing officer as also the appellate authority has misdirected the entire enquiry. They ought to have acted in terms of the directions contained in the order dated June 18, 2014. Not having done so, the entire action of the authorities subsequent to June 18, 2014 are without any jurisdiction.
(3.) The department is represented.;