2013 (5) TMI 349 - HC - Customs

Valuation - provisional assessment or final assessment - Case of the petitioner is that it imports Zink ash and Zink skimming as per value declared in the bill of entry which is to be cleared as per provisional or final assessment under Sections 17(5) or 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. In an earlier case 2010 (12) TMI 1048 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT , this Court disapproved the course adopted and directed that the norms laid down by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva could not be mechanically applied, irrespective of genuineness of transaction value. The said order has become final but still in flagrant violation of the order of this Court, the impugned assessment has been made. Thus, the plea taken in the reply is clearly based on non-application of mind and cannot be accepted. An officer exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction is not expected to ignore or show incompetence in understanding clear orders of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to provisional assessment on bill of entry, application of norms by Commissioner of Customs, violation of court order disapproving assessment based on fixed norms.

The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed multiple issues raised in three petitions involving common questions of law. The first issue pertained to the challenge of provisional assessment on a bill of entry filed by the petitioner, concerning the import of Zink ash and Zink skimming. The petitioner argued that the assessment was made at a higher value based on norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, contrary to legal provisions. The court highlighted a previous case where it disapproved of assessments solely based on fixed norms and directed that even if the declared value was not genuine, assessment should adhere to statutory requirements. Despite this directive, the impugned assessment in the current case was conducted solely based on the Commissioner's norms, violating the court's order.

In response to the challenge, the reply did not dispute that the provisional assessment was conducted according to the Commissioner's norms but argued that the court had not disapproved of these norms. However, the court found merit in the contention that its previous order clearly disapproved of assessments solely based on fixed norms. It emphasized that the impugned assessment disregarded the court's directive, indicating a lack of application of mind by the assessing officer. The court stated that an officer exercising quasi-judicial jurisdiction should not ignore or display incompetence in understanding clear court orders.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law within two weeks. Additionally, the court ordered a photocopy of the judgment to be placed in the file of connected cases, ensuring consistency in the application of legal principles and court directives.