2019 (9) TMI 478 - HC - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - alleged forgery of market enquiry - HELD THAT - There is some element of truth in the contentions of the petitioners that the Market Inquiry Report dated 31.05.2012 (P-2) is possibly forged, however, we do not find it appropriate to decide the issue while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the Tribunal consisting of two members (Member Judicial and Member Technical) would be quite competent to deal with all the issues raised by the petitioners for proper adjudication. It is also conceded that at present the Tribunal is available at Chandigarh, therefore, there seems to be no difficulty for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. The petitioners are relegated to file their appeals before the CESTAT, Chandigarh and if the appeals are filed within one month the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order, the learned Tribunal shall preferably within next six months decide the appeals in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Appeal dismissing appeal against Order-in-Original; Alleged forgery in Market Inquiry Report; Jurisdiction of High Court in writ petition; Competency of Appellate Tribunal; Relegation of petitioners to file appeals before CESTAT.

Analysis:
The petitioners, two sister concerns engaged in the export of Textile Garments, challenged Order-in-Appeal dismissing their appeal against Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The dispute arose when Directorate of Revenue Intelligence detained export consignments due to doubts regarding declared value, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing rejection of declared value, redemption fine, and penalties. Despite witness statements denying DRI officers' visits and signatures on the market inquiry report, the Adjudicating Authority relied on the report to pass the Order-in-Original.

The petitioners initially filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original but were directed to appeal before the First Appellate Authority. High Court allowed examination of Market Inquiry Report by CFSL and Handwriting Expert, leaving the issue of forgery open for the Appellate Authority to decide. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals without addressing the alleged forgery, prompting the petition seeking the quashing of the Order-in-Appeal.

The petitioners argued that the Market Inquiry Report was forged, emphasizing the need for examination by CFSL or a Judicial Official. The DRI contended that the report was not the basis of the Appellate Order, suggesting the petitioners pursue the appeal before the Tribunal/CESTAT. Eventually, both parties agreed to the petitioners filing an appeal before CESTAT, Chandigarh Bench.

The High Court, after considering arguments and perusing annexures, acknowledged the potential forgery in the Market Inquiry Report but deemed it inappropriate to decide the issue under Article 226 jurisdiction. The Court directed the petitioners to file appeals before CESTAT, Chandigarh, within one month, allowing the Tribunal to address all raised issues within six months without considering limitations.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, relegating the petitioners to pursue their appeals before CESTAT for comprehensive adjudication of the issues raised during the legal proceedings.