2012 (2) TMI 79 - HC - Customs

Confiscation and Redemption fine - Held That - Petitioner shall pay 30% of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond - Respondent to release the goods - Petitioner shall co-operate fully.

Summary

Issues:
Release of goods on payment of differential duty and furnishing personal bond, confirmation of previous orders by Division Bench, challenge to previous order, validity of contract for importing apples, direction to assessing authority for assessment.

Release of Goods on Payment of Differential Duty and Furnishing Personal Bond:
The petitioner proposed to pay 30% of the differential duty for the release of the goods and to furnish a personal bond for the balance amount. The petitioner cited previous orders by the Court where similar conditions were imposed for the release of goods. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties, directed the respondents to release the goods upon the petitioner fulfilling the specified conditions. The petitioner was also required to cooperate fully in any customs duty assessment proceedings initiated by the respondents.

Confirmation of Previous Orders by Division Bench and Challenge to Previous Order:
The respondents referred to a previous order dated 24.3.2011, directing the release of goods upon payment of 50% of the differential duty and furnishing a personal bond for the balance amount. The petitioner had challenged this order in W.A.No.599 of 2011. However, the First Bench of the Court confirmed the order and directed the assessing authority to conclude the assessment expeditiously within a specified time frame.

Validity of Contract for Importing Apples:
The petitioner argued that the contract for importing apples from the United States of America had been upheld by a previous order in Appeal dated 27.9.2011 by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The order cited a judgment by the Apex Court in a similar case, emphasizing that in the absence of any evidence of overpayment or extra commercial considerations influencing the price, the transaction value cannot be rejected as per valuation rules. The Court noted the validity of the contract and directed the respondents to release the goods based on the conditions specified.

Direction to Assessing Authority for Assessment:
The Court directed the assessing authority to consider the claims made by the petitioner, proceed with the assessment, and pass an appropriate order expeditiously within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The writ petition was ordered accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.