2014 (9) TMI 837 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Provisional release of goods - petitioner was further directed to furnish a bank guarantee of the differential duty after the provisional assessment - Held that - justice would be sub-serve if the respondent authorities are directed to activate themselves in determining the value under Rule 12 of the said Rules and to make a final assessment. - Court, therefore, directs the respondent No. 1 to take steps for final assessment of the duty which in no circumstances should exceed three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that while making a final assessment the authorities would adhere to the statutory procedures and the norms and shall see that the natural justice is not violated - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of goods due to doubt in transaction value shown in the bill of entry at the time of import.
2. Delay in final assessment by customs authorities post provisional release.
3. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.
4. Failure of respondent authorities to adhere to statutory responsibilities.
5. Direction for final assessment within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought provisional release of goods due to doubts raised by customs authorities regarding the transaction value in the bill of entry during import. The court, in response to a previous writ petition, directed the authorities to conduct a provisional assessment, with the petitioner required to deposit the customs duty and furnish a bank guarantee for the differential duty after assessment.

2. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the delay in the final assessment process by the customs authorities post the provisional release. The petitioner had complied with the requirements, including submitting a substantial bank guarantee, but no progress was made towards the final assessment.

3. The advocate for the petitioner referenced Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing the authorities' obligation to request documents and evidence in case of doubts regarding the accuracy of the declared value. The rule mandates serving a written notice and providing a hearing opportunity before determining the valuation. Rule 3, subject to Rule 12, states that the authorities must accept the transaction value if conditions are met.

4. The court noted the failure of respondent authorities to take steps in determining the value as per Rule 12, despite the petitioner fulfilling the requirements. The court highlighted the statutory responsibility of the authorities to not remain inactive and reminded them of their obligations.

5. Consequently, the court directed the respondent authorities to initiate the final assessment process within three weeks from the date of the order. The authorities were instructed to follow statutory procedures, norms, and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice during the assessment. The writ petition was disposed of without any costs, emphasizing the importance of timely and lawful assessment procedures.