2019 (8) TMI 338 - HC - Customs

Assessment of Bills of Entry -import of furniture items - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value - respondent case is that assessment to be done on the value arrived at on the basis of weight of furniture - HELD THAT - here shall be a direction to the respondent to assess/process ten Bills of Entry being Bills of Entry Nos.9803441 dated 23.5.2017, 9868109 dated 13.7.2015, 2118846 dated 3.8.2015, 2386527 dated 27.8.2015, 3041417 dated 26.10.2015, 3984296 dated 21.1.2015, 4691028 dated 24.3.2016, 5064428 dated 27.4.2016, 5337994 dated 20.5.2016 and 5391516 dated 25.5.2016 in accordance with the orders dated 9.2.2016 and 31.3.2016 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) bearing Reference C.Cus II Nos.135 to 137/2016 and 297/2016 respectively, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under Due Acknowledgment within seven working days therefrom. Though obvious, it is made clear that consequences, which flow from the outcome, will proceed without any further reference to this Court. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of Bills of Entry based on declared value.
2. Dispute over the assessment of imported furniture items.
3. Previous writ petition regarding provisional release of consignment.
4. Orders made by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II).
5. Prayers and directions sought in the writ petitions.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the assessment of Bills of Entry concerning the declared value of imported goods. The respondent, in this instance, did not accept the declared value of furniture items, insisting that the assessment should be based on the weight of the furniture.

2. Following this disagreement, the respondent proceeded to enhance the value of the imported goods based on their assessment criteria, resulting in the collection of an increased duty from the petitioner. The dispute primarily focused on the method of valuation used by the customs authorities for assessing the furniture items.

3. Prior to the orders issued by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition seeking provisional release of the consignment. This earlier petition was disposed of by a Single Judge, leading to the provisional release of the imported goods under specific terms.

4. The crucial aspect of the judgment lies in the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, namely the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), on 9th February 2016 and 31st March 2016. These orders set aside the rejection of the declared value and directed the reassessment of the Bills of Entry, emphasizing the acceptance of the declared invoice value.

5. In light of the submissions made by the parties involved, the writ petitioner abridged the prayers and requested a direction to the respondent to assess the ten Bills of Entry in accordance with the aforementioned orders of the Appellate Authority. The court, therefore, directed the respondent to assess and process the Bills of Entry within a specified timeframe and communicate the outcome to the petitioner promptly.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the writ petitions with the specified directions for the assessment of Bills of Entry, emphasizing compliance with the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment did not award any costs to either party.