2014 (8) TMI 844 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Reassessment of goods - Maintainability of appeal - Alternative remedy - Held that - Petitioners on their own have stated that the Respondent No.1 has referred to some Standing Order but has not yet passed any order. The attempt of the Respondent No.1, according to the Petitioner, is to assess or reassess the goods. If that is so, the concerned authorities will have to pass a speaking order and thereafter the same is capable of being challenged in terms of the legal provisions viz. under the Customs Act, 1962. We cannot entertain writ petitions only on the premise that the Respondent No.1 may prefer to rely on the Standing Order and not the Customs Act 1962. In the attempt that the Respondent No.1 is allegedly making, the Petitioner is not prevented from pointing out not only section 14 of the Customs Act but the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the learned Sr. Counsel. When such course is open and once the matter has been brought before us at a stage when there is no adjudication, then we are afraid, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised. We refrain from entertaining these petitions simply because the Petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy in terms of the Customs Act 1962. Once there are disputed questions of fact, writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. We cannot preempt any adjudication - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Standing Order and Public Notice under Customs Act 1962 and Customs Valuation Rules 2007.

Analysis:
The petitioners contested Standing Order No.7493/99 and Public Notice No.15/2009 issued by the Respondent, alleging non-compliance with the Customs Act 1962 and Customs Valuation Rules 2007. The petitioners, importers and traders of polymers, highlighted discrepancies in the reassessment of goods by the Respondent, claiming deviation from legal provisions. They referred to invoices from international suppliers and challenged the Respondent's valuation methodology. The petitioners argued that the Respondent's actions contravened the Customs Act and Rules, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Varsha Plastics Pvt.Ltd. v/s Union of India.

The Court noted the absence of any official order by the Respondent regarding the reassessment of goods. The petitioners' reliance on the Department's alleged stance, not reflected in any formal orders, raised concerns. The Court emphasized that any assessment or reassessment order by the Respondent is subject to appeal under the Customs Act 1962. The petitioners' plea for writ jurisdiction was based on the contention that the Respondent disregarded transaction values in favor of PLATT magazine rates. However, the Court held that writ petitions cannot be entertained solely on speculative grounds, especially when no formal order has been issued by the Respondent.

The Court declined to entertain the petitions, emphasizing the availability of legal remedies under the Customs Act 1962 for challenging assessment orders. It stressed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate in cases involving disputed factual issues. The Court dismissed the petitions, highlighting the importance of due process and the need for formal adjudication before seeking judicial intervention.