2014 (11) TMI 326 - HC - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Misdeclaration of value of goods - Held that - only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner made wrong declaration of assessable value of the consignment in question and therefore, the authority concerned has enhanced the assessable value of the goods to ₹ 12,69,374/-, the correctness of the order-in-original is subject to the outcome of the appeal, pending consideration by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). As the consignment in question are not prohibited or restricted items, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted permission to clear the consignment in question, subject to the some conditions - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order under Section 110A of Customs Act 1962 for provisional release of consignment; Challenge to conditions imposed for release of consignment; Merger of impugned order with subsequent Order-in-Original; Appeal against Order-in-Original; Grant of permission to clear consignment subject to conditions; Stay on payment of redemption fine and penalty pending appeal; Liberty to file separate application for waiver of redemption charges.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order issued under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 for the provisional release of a consignment. The petitioner had imported coin cell type watch batteries and faced discrepancies in the declared value, leading to a show cause notice being issued.

2. The respondents, after investigation, issued a demand notice for differential duty and penalties. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs permitted the release of the consignment subject to certain conditions, which the petitioner found objectionable, leading to the present challenge.

3. The respondents argued that the impugned order for provisional release was no longer applicable as an Order-in-Original had been passed subsequently, determining the assessable value, imposing duties, and penalties. The petitioner, however, contended that the impugned order and the Order-in-Original were distinct proceedings.

4. The court opined that since the petitioner had complied with the Order-in-Original by paying the differential duty, it was more beneficial than the impugned order. The issue of whether the impugned order merged with the Order-in-Original was deemed unnecessary at that stage.

5. Considering the pending appeal against the Order-in-Original, the court granted permission to clear the consignment subject to specific conditions, including payment of duties, differential duty, and a stay on redemption fine and penalties pending the appeal.

6. The court directed the release of the consignment upon compliance with the specified conditions, clarifying that the payment made would not prejudice the petitioner's rights in the pending appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

7. The petitioner's request for a waiver of redemption charges under a specific regulation was not entertained as it fell outside the scope of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue that remedy independently.

8. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions and observations, without imposing any costs on either party.