2003 (2) TMI 283 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) to fix the value of imported goods.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
3. Correct method of valuation for customs duty under the Customs Act and Valuation Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) to Fix the Value of Imported Goods:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the MRTPC to fix the value at which goods could be imported into India. The petitioner argued that the MRTPC exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that affect the valuation of imported goods, which should be governed exclusively by the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules. The court agreed with the petitioner, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers Association*, which held that the MRTPC does not have jurisdiction over matters related to import valuation and anti-dumping, which are governed by the Customs Act. The court concluded that the MRTPC's directions were without jurisdiction and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to assess the import value without reference to the MRTPC's directions.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs:
The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs violated principles of natural justice by assessing the customs duty before the expiry of the time allowed for the petitioner to submit objections. The court found merit in this contention, noting that the notice was served on the petitioner on 12-7-99, and the petitioner had until 22-7-99 to submit objections. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed the assessment order on 18-7-99, ignoring the petitioner's objections. The court held that this action violated principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned order on this ground.

3. Correct Method of Valuation for Customs Duty under the Customs Act and Valuation Rules:
The petitioner argued that the customs duty should be levied based on the actual transaction value of the imported goods as per Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules, and not on a notional value determined by the MRTPC. The court agreed, emphasizing that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs should have assessed the value of the goods in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules, rather than relying on the MRTPC's directions. The court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in *Sounds N. Images v. Collector of Customs* and *Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai*, which affirmed that the transaction value should be used for customs duty assessment unless specific exceptions apply.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs due to the violation of natural justice and the improper reliance on the MRTPC's directions. The court directed a de novo assessment of the import value in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules, without reference to the MRTPC's directions. The court also ordered the refund of Rs. 24.72 lakhs deposited by the petitioner and directed that any difference in duty be remitted based on the final assessment. Both writ petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.