9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of the order of the Collector of Customs in connection with certain imports - Determination of the real value of the imported goods under the Import Trade Control Order and Sea Customs Act - Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by the Assistant Collector of Customs - Rejection of contentions by the Collector of Customs in the appeal - Consideration of evidentiary material without notice to the petitioner - Compliance with quasi-judicial duties by the Customs Authorities Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Customs regarding certain imports. The petitioner had import licenses for watch parts and claimed to have imported spare parts within the license value. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs alleged under-valuation and confiscated the goods, imposing a penalty. The Collector of Customs upheld this decision in the appeal, leading the petitioner to challenge the order, contending that the real value of the goods was within the license limits and irrelevant factors were considered by the authorities. 2. The respondent argued that the import contravened the Import Trade Control Order due to the appraised value exceeding the invoice value and license limit. The circular from manufacturers lacked details on pricing quantities. The respondent claimed the Collector has the authority to determine real value and that the petitioner could have requested evidence details. The respondent contended that failure to request such details barred the petitioner from challenging the order. 3. The Assistant Collector appraised the goods at a higher value than the invoice, leading to confiscation. The petitioner protested, citing the circular and a similar case in Bombay where no objection was raised. The Collector affirmed the appraisal, stating the value based on other imports and lack of discounts on job lots. The petitioner highlighted two court decisions supporting the invoice price as the actual value for licensing purposes. 4. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing notice and opportunity to contest evidence relied upon by Customs Authorities. The petitioner was not informed of the material used against them, impacting their ability to present relevant evidence. The court found the Customs Authorities had a quasi-judicial duty to disclose such material and allowed the petition, directing a fresh consideration of the matter by Customs Authorities. 5. The judgment concluded by stating that the Customs Authorities must reevaluate the case in light of the court's observations, emphasizing the duty to provide notice and opportunity for contesting evidence. The ruling did not award costs, leaving the matter open for further review by the Customs Authorities.
|
