9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act 2. Legality of the order of confiscation 3. Alleged unequal treatment in valuing the goods 4. Validity of the second show-cause notice Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act: The petitioner argued that the Assistant Collector of Appraisement fixed the value of the goods arbitrarily and without basis in accordance with law. The petitioner contended that the correct time for valuation should be the time of placing the order, not the time of shipment. The court found that the valuation must be based on the "real value" as defined in Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act, which refers to the wholesale cash price at the time and place of importation. The court held that the "time of importation" should reasonably be the date of shipment, not the date of the contract. The court concluded that the Assistant Collector's determination of the value at the time of shipment was reasonable and lawful. 2. Legality of the Order of Confiscation: The petitioner claimed that the order of confiscation of the entire goods was contrary to law. The court clarified that the confiscation was only in respect of the goods valued at Rs. 1,982.45 nP, which was the excess amount not covered by the existing permit. The rest of the goods could be taken delivery of upon complying with the legal procedure. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding the confiscation order. 3. Alleged Unequal Treatment in Valuing the Goods: The petitioner alleged that the Customs authorities valued their goods at a much higher rate than other goods in the same shipment, resulting in unequal treatment. The court noted that there was insufficient material in the pleadings to support this claim. The court emphasized that different consignments of goods of different qualities could have varying values, and there was no evidence of discrimination. Consequently, the court dismissed this point as lacking substance. 4. Validity of the Second Show-Cause Notice: The petitioner argued that the second show-cause notice was issued mala fide and capriciously, as cause had already been shown to the first notice. The court found that the second notice was issued to correct errors in the first notice, such as the incorrect unit of measurement (picul instead of Cwt). The court held that there was no legal or procedural bar to issuing a second show-cause notice to correct such mistakes. The court criticized the petitioner for not contesting the second notice and found no merit in the claim that the second notice was invalid. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law on the face of the proceedings or any defect in jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application for a writ of certiorari, discharged the Rule, and vacated any interim orders. There was no order as to costs.
|
