9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order passed by the appellate authority in case of the petitioner, in which the appellate authority had set aside the order of the adjudicating authority passed earlier concerning similar exports as involved in the present petition. However, stand of the Department is that in the present case, the adjudicating authority has referred to and relied upon the additional material, instances of imports of similar goods, for arriving at the transaction value. In similar situation, in SCA No.7315 of 2017, we had passed following order on 07.11.2017:- "1. Special Civil Application No. 5755 of 2017 is treated as lead matter. Petitioners are importers of mixed fabric. They have imported mixed lot of 100% polyester knitted fabrics at Mundra P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... again, the department took the same dispute leading to further proceedings between the parties. The adjudicating authority, this time around, referred to other imports which included goods of identical nature and adopted the transaction value of the goods on such basis in the range of Rs. 152 to 250 per k.g. These orders, the petitioners have challenged in these petitions. Their main ground is that when an identical issue has been decided by the appellate authority in favour of the importers, the adjudicating authority could not have taken a different view. They strongly rely on the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court holding that as quasi judicial authority, the adjudicating officer is bound by the judgement of the appellate auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brought on record and relied upon by the adjudicating authority are not comparable instances. The comparability must be in terms of time of import and the quantity of import. He submitted that merely because the grounds are similar would not mean the imports are comparable. He lastly contended that in certain cases, the authority has substituted the declared valuation without any hearing being granted to the importers. 5. On the other hand, learned advocates Mr. Vyas and Shah for the department opposed the petitions contending that in view of statutory appeals available, these petitions should not be entertained. In any case, the appeal would lie before the Supreme Court against the judgement of CESTAT. The authorities had fresh materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) had reversed the same, we would have still stepped in to obviate the gross injustice. As per the settled law, the adjudicating authority would be bound by the order of the appellate authority as long as it holds the field. If he had therefore taken a decision contrary to such appellate order under identical circumstances, the petitioners would have been justified in urging us to exercise writ jurisdiction. In the present case, however, we prima facie find that the appellate orders were primarily based on the fact that the adjudicating authority in those cases had compared the two different products terming them as 'similar products' for import. The approach was deprecated and the appellate authority found that there was no mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Civil Application No. 2772 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly. 10. In Special Civil Application No. 5755 of 2017, the petitioner has challenged five orders-in-original and also made a grievance about non-finalization of pending bills of entries. The situation is as follows: A. In case of order-in-original 23.02.2017, the fresh instance relied upon is same as which the appellate authority, 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. B. In case of order-in-original dated 27.02.2017, the adjudicating authority has brought on record fresh material. The petitioner would, therefore, have to challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry. The department shall do that latest by 15.12.2017. The said petition is disposed of. 13. In Special Civil Applications No. 15667 to 15669 of 2017, it is undisputed that the department has rejected the petitioners' declared value substituting the same for higher value without any notice or giving hearing to the petitioners. That being the position, such assessments stand set aside. The adjudicating authority may, however, pass fresh order in accordance with law after giving notice to the petitioners. 14. It is clarified that wherever on the ground that the adjudicating authority has disregarded the order of the appellant authority and ruled against the importers, the proceedings are remanded, he shall pass fresh order in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
