2007 (9) TMI 8 - HC - Customs

Two issue arises by assessing officer (i) high price paid by the assessee for the purchase of share of the erstwhile HCL (ii) valuation of closing stock of share at lower price - Held that assessing officer view is not correct and allow appeal of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of imported goods pending adjudication
2. Release of seized Indian currency and prohibition on maintaining a minimum balance in bank accounts

Issue 1: Release of imported goods pending adjudication
The petitioner sought release of goods imported under a bill of entry, stating the value at US$ 1.90 per meter pending adjudication. The respondents seized the goods when imported at a rate of US$ 1.55 per meter. A controversy arose regarding the thickness of the imported goods, with the petitioner claiming 1.0 m.m. +- 3% thickness, while the respondents argued for a higher thickness value. The court noted delays in determining the thickness and relied on the petitioner's claim until contrary evidence was presented. Considering past import values and a circular, the court directed the release of goods at US$ 1.90 per meter, pending adjudication.

Issue 2: Release of seized Indian currency and prohibition on maintaining a minimum balance in bank accounts
The petitioner also sought the release of seized Indian currency of Rs.23.90 lakhs and to avoid maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.4.89 lakhs in bank accounts. The respondents justified the seizure under the Customs Act, alleging the currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods. However, the court found no evidence suggesting the goods were smuggled, emphasizing they were imported and cleared lawfully. The court rejected the claim that under-invoicing classified the goods as smuggled. Citing legal provisions and previous judgments, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of the seized currency and relieving the petitioner from maintaining the minimum balance, subject to certain undertakings for restitution if adjudication proceedings ruled against the petitioner. The court disposed of the application and related writ petition accordingly.