2018 (9) TMI 1605 - HC - Customs

Valuation - declared value - declared value of the goods in the bill of entry applied by it was accepted but later, on the allegations levelled by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the question is sought to be revisited - case of petitioner is also that it has been subjected to harassment and its representatives repeatedly summoned to attend DRI proceedings in Ahemdabad - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that since the respondents have now carried out their appraisal of the imported articles, the petitioner may, if it chooses, apply for provisional release of the goods. In case the conditions imposed upon the petitioner are not acceptable to it for any reason or the conditions are also honoured, it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before CESTAT - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revaluation of goods in bill of entry by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
2. Allegations of harassment and repeated summoning of petitioner's representatives by DRI.
3. Acceptance of declared value of goods by customs authorities in Delhi.

The High Court addressed the petitioner's grievances in a case involving the revaluation of goods in the bill of entry by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner contended that the declared value initially accepted was later questioned by the DRI based on allegations. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about harassment and repeated summoning of its representatives to DRI proceedings in Ahemdabad, despite the goods being imported in Delhi and the declared value being accepted by customs authorities in Delhi. The respondent, represented by Mr. Singla, informed the court that the revaluation led to a tentative enhancement of the goods' value, resulting in a potential differential amount due of over ?18 Lakhs.

The Court acknowledged the respondent's appraisal of the imported articles and allowed the petitioner to apply for provisional release of the goods if desired. If the conditions imposed upon the petitioner were unacceptable, or if they were met and honored, the petitioner had the option to seek appropriate remedy before CESTAT. The Commissioner was directed to issue a speaking order within a week of receiving the application for provisional release, with the petitioner retaining the right to appeal that order. Furthermore, during the investigation, the respondent was instructed to ensure that the petitioner's representatives were not inconvenienced, with investigations primarily conducted in New Delhi. In exceptional circumstances necessitating investigation outside Delhi, the respondent was required to provide adequate notice for questioning the petitioner's representative and complete the investigation in one sitting.

Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court in the aforementioned terms, providing clarity on the petitioner's rights regarding the provisional release of goods, appeal options, and the conduct of investigations to prevent inconvenience to the petitioner's representatives.