2022 (9) TMI 1301 - HC - Customs

Provisional assessment of bills of entry - import of polyester knitted fabric and other fabrics from China - enhancement of valuation - Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - It is not disputed, that the power to finally assess the subject bills of entry is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Although Section 18 of the Act does not specifically advert to issuance of a show-cause notice, it is implicit in the said provision. The final assessment of the bills of entry, whereby a variance is brought about in the valuation of the subject goods, which is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, would have to be communicated to the affected party - Admittedly, in this case, the valuation of the subject goods, which forms part of 95 bills of entry, has been enhanced. The basis for enhancement of valuation, apparently, was not communicated to the petitioner. According to us, that is the first infraction, which has been committed by the respondent/revenue. The impugned order cannot be sustained - Writ petition is disposed off.

Issues:
1. Final assessment of bills of entry under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Lack of communication and reasons in the impugned order.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Adherence to show-cause notice requirements.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and directions for fresh assessment.

Issue 1: Final assessment of bills of entry under the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs regarding the final assessment of bills of entry spanning from 2013 to 2016. Out of 103 bills, 8 were assessed finally, while 95 were provisionally assessed. The goods involved were polyester knitted fabric imported from China. After a court direction, the 95 bills were finally assessed under the declared Customs Tariff Heading by the petitioner.

Issue 2: Lack of communication and reasons in the impugned order:
The petitioner's main grievance was the lack of reasons in the impugned order dated 24.09.2020. The respondent/revenue failed to communicate the basis for enhancing the valuation of goods, which was a violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order merely stated finalization of bills of entry without providing any reasoning, contrary to the established legal requirement of reasons to link material appraised and conclusions reached.

Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner contended a violation of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order. Even though the Customs Act, 1962, does not explicitly mention show-cause notice in Section 18, it is implied. The failure to communicate the basis for valuation enhancement and lack of reasons in the order further compounded the violation of natural justice principles.

Issue 4: Adherence to show-cause notice requirements:
The court emphasized the importance of issuing a show-cause notice before final assessment to maintain procedural fairness. The respondent/revenue was directed to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner detailing the proposed valuation changes and provide relevant material for review. The petitioner would also be granted a personal hearing before a speaking order is passed.

Issue 5: Setting aside the impugned order and directions for fresh assessment:
The court set aside the impugned order due to the lack of reasons and violation of natural justice principles. The respondent/revenue was instructed to conduct a fresh assessment of the 95 bills of entry, issue a show-cause notice, provide relevant material, grant a personal hearing, and pass a speaking order. The petitioner retained the right to challenge the order if adverse, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court and the legal principles applied in resolving the dispute.

← Previous Next →