1975 (7) TMI 75 - HC - Customs

Remand with direction - Alternative remedy - Existence of - Limitation - Expiry of time limit for preferring an appeal

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs in passing orders.
2. Applicability of Section 14(1)(a) vs. Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs in Passing Orders:
The petitioner challenged the validity of orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the grounds that they were in excess of his jurisdiction and violated the order of the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector had annulled the Assistant Collector's previous order and remanded the matter for re-examination, specifically directing the Assistant Collector to determine the quantum of discount claimable for after-sales services or expenditure by local sole agents. The Assistant Collector, however, reiterated his stance that Section 14(1)(a) was applicable, disregarding the Appellate Collector's directive. The court held that the Assistant Collector had acted contrary to the Appellate Authority's decision, which was binding on him, thus rendering his orders dated 2-12-1972 and 5-3-1973 illegal, unjustified, and without jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of Section 14(1)(a) vs. Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The core issue was whether Section 14(1)(a) or Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act should be applied for determining the assessable value of the imported goods. Section 14(1)(a) pertains to the price at which goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale in the course of international trade, while Section 14(1)(b) applies when such a price is not ascertainable. The petitioner contended that Section 14(1)(b) had been applied all along and should continue to be applied. The court observed that the Appellate Authority, by annulling the Assistant Collector's order and remanding the matter, implicitly directed that Section 14(1)(b) should be applied. The Assistant Collector's insistence on applying Section 14(1)(a) was thus in violation of the Appellate Authority's order.

3. Alleged Suppression of Facts by the Petitioner:
The Assistant Collector had held that there was suppression of facts by the petitioner, leading to under-assessment of duty. The petitioner argued that this finding was unwarranted and perverse, as all facts had been disclosed to the authorities at the time of assessment. The court noted that the Assistant Collector's finding of suppression of facts appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the six-month limitation period for reassessment and extend it to five years under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The court found this finding to be unjustified and unwarranted, further invalidating the Assistant Collector's orders.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders dated 2-12-1972 and 5-3-1973 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, holding them to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The Assistant Collector was directed to determine the value of the goods in compliance with the Appellate Authority's order, specifically under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The court did not interfere with the provisional assessment order dated 3-6-1972. The authorities were restrained from giving effect to the quashed orders, and there was no order as to costs. The operation of the court's order was stayed for four weeks, during which the interim order would continue.