2014 (9) TMI 836 - HC - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Provisional release of goods - Bank guarantee - Held that - Justice would be subserve if the respondent authorities are directed to activate themselves in determining the value under Rule 12 of the said rules and to make a final assessment. This Court, therefore, directs the respondent no. 1 to take steps for final assessment of the duty which in no circumstances should exceed three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that while making a final assessment the authorities would adhere to the statutory procedures and the norms and shall see that the principle of natural justice is not violated. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional release of goods based on customs valuation.
2. Failure of authorities to proceed with final assessment post provisional release.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of provisional release of goods based on customs valuation. The petitioner had sought provisional release of goods due to doubts raised by customs authorities regarding the transaction value declared in the bill of entry at the time of import. The court had earlier directed the authorities to conduct a provisional assessment within a specified time frame. The petitioner had complied by depositing the customs duty payable on the declared value and furnishing a bank guarantee. However, the grievance arose when no steps were taken for the final assessment after the provisional release of the goods.

2. The petitioner's advocate argued that Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 mandates that if authorities doubt the accuracy of the declared value, they must request documents, provide an opportunity for hearing, and proceed with determination of valuation. It was highlighted that the authorities had not taken any steps post the provisional assessment as required by Rule 12. The court noted the petitioner's concern regarding the substantial amount tied up in the bank guarantee and emphasized the authorities' statutory responsibility to proceed with the final assessment in a timely manner.

3. The court, in its judgment, directed the respondent authorities to activate themselves in determining the value under Rule 12 and proceed with the final assessment within three weeks. The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures, norms, and principles of natural justice during the final assessment process. By issuing this directive, the court aimed to ensure that justice was served and the authorities fulfilled their obligations in determining the customs duty accurately and promptly.

4. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without imposing any costs on the parties involved. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural compliance, timely assessment, and upholding principles of natural justice in customs valuation matters to safeguard the interests of all parties involved.