9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 846X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the earlier orders of adjudication passed by the authority and the present group of cases. This is not to curtail any of the legal contentions of the petitioners on merits of the orders passed. However, in cases where the adjudicating authority has substituted the declared value of the petitioner without any notice or hearing, such orders would have to be set aside and proceedings be remanded to the said authority for fresh disposal - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Special Civil Application No. 2772 of 2017 With Special Civil Application No. 5755 of 2017 With Special Civil Application No. 7312 of 2017 With Special Civil Application No. 7315 of 2017 With Special Civil Application No. 7318 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2017 - MR. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority, by an order dated 03.02.2016, set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority inter alia on the ground that no comparable instances were brought on record while rejecting the value declaration of the petitioner. The appellate authority concluded that the adjudicating authority had not established any mis-declaration and there was no evidence of any act of omission or commission to substantiate undervaluation of imported goods. He also held that the adjudicating authority had not pointed out any cogent grounds for rejection of the declared value nor followed the procedure prescribed under section 14 read with the said Rules. Inter alia on the said grounds, the appeal was allowed. The order of the adjudicating authority w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. It is further contended that in view of availability of statutory appeals, the present petition should not be entertained more so, when the issue involved is one of valuation of the goods having relation to the rate of duty. In such a case, the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court at the hands of the person aggrieved by the final order that the CESTAT may pass. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Paritosh Gupta for the petitioners vehementally contended that no fresh or new material was brought on record by the adjudicating authority in the present set of cases. He could not have therefore, ignored the orders of the appellate authority in case of these very importers holding that the substitution of the declared value by the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cases, the petitioners must be relegated to appeal remedy. Against the order of adjudicating authority, admittedly, a statutory appeal lies to the Commissioner. Yet again, against the order of Commissioner, further appeal would lie to CESTAT. In terms of section 130E of the Customs Act, further appeal would lie directly to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. It is well settled that the High Court would not ordinarily entertain a writ petition directly aimed against an order-in-original in taxing statute where statutory appeals are available, more so when ultimately the issue is one which would travel to the Supreme Court by way of appeal instead of the High Court. Despite this, had the adjudicating authority passed fresh orders u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In third category or cases, the orders shall have to be set aside directing the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order following the directions of the appellate authority. After such order is passed, it will be open for the either side, who may have been aggrieved, to prefer appeal. 9. We now take-up cases for application of the above conclusions. In Special Civil Application No. 2772 of 2017, the petitioners have challenged order dated 02.02.2017 substituting the valuation declared by the petitioner without there being any additional material being brought on record. This clearly is opposed to the principles of precedence. Such order is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner has also prayed for finalization of the bills of entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority, in the earlier round, has disapproved. The order is, therefore, set aside. The adjudicating authority shall pass fresh order with liberty to the aggrieved person to challenge it. Regarding pending bills of entries, the department is given time upto 15.12.2017. Special Civil Application No. 5755 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly. 11. In Special Civil Applications No. 7312/2017, 7315/2017, 7318/2017, 7319/2017, 9287/2017, 9636/2017, 10335/2017 and 12814/2017, the adjudicating authority has relied on fresh instances treating them as comparable. The petitioners would therefore, have to file appeals against such orders. These petitions are, therefore, not entertained and disposed of accordingly. 12. In Special Civil Application No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
