JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Antony Dominic for the respondent. 2. The Writ Appeal is filed against the Judgment in O. P. 16341 of 1997 dated 16th February 1998. The said Original Petition was filed by the respondent to call for the records leading to Exts. P-1, P-3, P-5, P-7 and P-9 and to quash the same and to declare that the respondent is not liable to pay any amount towards the alleged duty in its capacity as steamer agent and also to direct the appellants to forbear from appropriating any amount towards the alleged duty liability in respect of the duty on ships stores of vessel M. T. Astro Aries from the deposit account maintained by it with the Customs Department. The Original Petition was resisted by the appellants, who filed their counter. 3. G. Sivarajan, J., by his Judgment dated 16th February 1.998, allowed the Original Petition on the ground that the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Import and Bond) Customs House, Cochin are hit by the provisions of S.28 of the Customs Act and, therefore, the learned Judge quashed the demand made in Exts. P-1, P-3, P-5, P-7 and P-9. 4. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel submitted that the assumption of the learned Judge that as per S.28 notice should have been issued at any rate within a period of five years is not correct and that in the instant case the assessment of Bill of Entry and raising of demand are two independent functions dealt with in S.17 and 28 of the Act respectively. Therefore, the learned Judge is not correct in finding that the Department raised the demand only after a period of 13 years as per S.28. According to the Standing Counsel, once the assessment is completed and a copy of the Bill of Entry is returned to the importer/steamer agent, he may pay the duty assessed thereon and in such cases a demand is to be raised within the time prescribed under S.28. In the present case, all the demands were made within time even-though there was a delay in assessment. He would further submit that the Act does not stipulate a particular time frame for finalising the assessment. It only speaks that assessment should be completed without undue delay. 5. Per contra, Mr. In the present case, all the demands were made within time even-though there was a delay in assessment. He would further submit that the Act does not stipulate a particular time frame for finalising the assessment. It only speaks that assessment should be completed without undue delay. 5. Per contra, Mr. Antony Dominic submitted that the vessel arrived at Cochin in 1983 and the Bill of Entry for duty assessment pertaining to the goods in the vessel was filed on 18th December 1983. However, the assessment was made and demand raised only on 13th November 1996 as evidenced by Ext. P-1, i.e., after a period of about 13 years from the date of filing of the Bill of Entry. Therefore, he would submit that the action initiated after an inordinate delay of 13 years cannot at all be countenanced. 6. The learned Judge, on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that there is inordinate delay of 13 years in making the assessment from the date of filing of Bill of Entry. As per S.28 of the Act, when any duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded, the proper officer may in cases other than that falls under clause (a) of sub-section (1), within six months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not beer levied requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. According to the learned Judge, the provisions contained in S.28 have not been followed at all. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was of the view that the authority could have taken action under S.28 within six months from the relevant date and at any rate within a period of five years being the extended period covered by the proviso. 7. In this case, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the first communication was made only under Ext. P1 dated 13th November 1996 even though the Bill of Entry was filed by him on 18th December 1983. We are also of the view that since the demand is made for the first time only on 13th November 1996 without an assessment within the time provided under S.28 of the Act, the proceedings of the third appellant is hit by the provisions of S.28. We are also of the view that since the demand is made for the first time only on 13th November 1996 without an assessment within the time provided under S.28 of the Act, the proceedings of the third appellant is hit by the provisions of S.28. Therefore, we confirm the Judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Exts. P1, P-3, P-5, P-7 and P-9. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.