9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1093 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - alternative remedy - Release of detained goods - provisional assessment u/s 18 of CA - Rejection of declared value - enhancement of value - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the petitioner has already filed the Statutory Appeal under Section 128 of CA assailing the Final Assessment Order dated 27.08.2019 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited an amount equal to 7.5% of the demanded differential duty at the time of filing of the appeal. In view of the statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner having been availed the only surviving dispute in writ petition pertains to the release of goods lying detained in the Custom Bonded Warehouse under the custody of the Customs Department. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Enhanced assessed value and differential duty demand under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Release of detained goods during pendency of appeal under Section 128 and/or 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. Provisional Assessment under Section 18: The judgment addresses the situation where a consignment of food supplements was imported and detained by Customs Authorities due to alleged under-valuation. The petitioner sought provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with provisional release of goods due to their perishable nature. The court noted that the petitioner filed writ petitions seeking mandamus for provisional assessment, as the goods were neither released nor provisionally assessed. Enhanced Assessed Value and Differential Duty Demand under Section 17: The Customs Authorities proceeded with assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, resulting in an order enhancing the assessed value and demanding a differential duty. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition. The Department passed another order under Section 17(5) due to the petitioner's non-acceptance of the enhanced value, leading to further writ petitions challenging these subsequent orders. Statutory Appeal under Section 128: The judgment mentions that the petitioner had already filed a Statutory Appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, against the Final Assessment Order. It was noted that the petitioner had deposited a certain amount equivalent to 7.5% of the demanded differential duty while filing the appeal. Release of Detained Goods during Pendency of Appeal: The court acknowledged that the first two writ petitions became infructuous due to subsequent orders, and the only remaining dispute concerned the release of detained goods. It was highlighted that there was no provision in the Customs Act, 1962, for the release of detained goods during the pendency of an appeal under Section 128 or 129. The judgment cited precedents to support the argument that the release of goods during appeal could be guided by equity and fair play. Final Decision: The court directed the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to decide the pending appeal within three months and ordered the release of the detained goods upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Proper Officer for the remaining demand of differential duty. The Proper Officer was instructed to issue the necessary detention memo for the release of goods in accordance with the law within one week from the date of receipt of the court's order.
|
