9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1038 - HC - CustomsProvisional valuation of imported goods - HELD THAT - Ext.P8 can't be treated as a final decision on the request of petitioner for provisional release. The 2nd respondent merely desired the presence of one of the partners of petitionerfirm while undertaking the determination, may be to confront the absentee partner on the information gathered by the intelligence wing of the respondents. Be that as it may, now the alternate prayer of petitioner is to provisionally determine the valuation of the goods from the details or materials available or gathered in this behalf. The respondents collect duty on the value determined and thereafter release the goods. It appears from the stand taken by the Standing Counsel that the respondents do not have objection for such course. The provisional determination and release of goods is subject to final order in the pending enquiry in the matter and during such pendency of enquiry the presence of Sri. Mohammad Iqubal can be summoned only in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Writ of certiorari to quash the issuance of Ext.P8 2. Writ of mandamus to provisionally assess duty on imported goods 3. Request for liberty to represent for determining the value of imported goods 4. Maintainability of the writ petition and objections raised by respondents Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the issuance of Ext.P8 and a writ of mandamus to provisionally assess duty on imported goods. The petitioner argued that the refusal to provisionally value the goods was arbitrary and illegal due to the unwellness of a key individual involved in the process. The court acknowledged the petitioner's alternative request for liberty to represent for determining the value of the goods based on materials gathered by the respondents. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with legal obligations in releasing the goods. 2. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that Ext.P8 was not a final decision and the request for provisional release was still pending. The court agreed that Ext.P8 was not a final decision and noted that the respondents had the authority to evaluate the circumstances and pass orders during the determination of the goods' valuation. The court directed the 2nd respondent to provisionally determine the value of the goods within a specified timeline and release them upon the petitioner's compliance with statutory requirements, including duty payment. 3. The court addressed the petitioner's request for liberty to represent for determining the value of the imported goods. It was decided that the 2nd respondent should consider and pass an order on the request within a specific timeframe. The court also allowed for the immediate provisional release of the goods, subject to the final order in the pending enquiry. The presence of a key individual related to the goods could be summoned only in accordance with the law during the pendency of the enquiry. 4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to provisionally determine the value of the goods and release them based on the materials available. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with legal obligations and the need for a fair and just determination process. A certified copy of the order was to be provided within a specified timeframe.
|
