9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the interests of the petitioner, would have to be communicated to the affected party - Admittedly, in this case, the valuation of the subject goods, which forms part of 95 bills of entry, has been enhanced. The basis for enhancement of valuation, apparently, was not communicated to the petitioner. According to us, that is the first infraction, which has been committed by the respondent/revenue. The impugned order cannot be sustained - Writ petition is disposed off. - W.P.(C) 7325/2020 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. Respondent Through: Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate for Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. It appears, that only after this Court passed a direction on 24.06.2020, as noticed above, were the said bills of entry, which are in 95 number, finally assessed. 10. It is also the case of the respondent/revenue, that the final assessment has been done under the CTH(Customs Tariff Heading), which was declared by the petitioner in its bills of entry. 11. What is required to be noticed, is that the respondent/revenue claims, that intimation with regard to 95 bills of entry, as already finally assessed, was forwarded internally to Deputy Commissioner (Legal), ICD, Tughlakabad on 24.07.2020. 12. It is also the case of the respondent/revenue, that intimation in this behalf was also given to the petitioner via letter dated 04.11.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brought about in the valuation of the subject goods, which is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, would have to be communicated to the affected party (in this case, the importer i.e., the petitioner). 20. Admittedly, in this case, the valuation of the subject goods, which forms part of 95 bills of entry, has been enhanced. The basis for enhancement of valuation, apparently, was not communicated to the petitioner. According to us, that is the first infraction, which has been committed by the respondent/revenue. 20.1 The other infraction, in law, which is palpable in this case, is that the impugned order furnishes no reasons. It is well settled, that reasons are a link between material appraised by the statutory authority, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner and/or its authorized representative will also be granted a personal hearing in the matter. 27. The concerned authority, thereafter, will pass a speaking order; a copy of which will be furnished to the petitioner. 28. In case the speaking order passed by the concerned authority is adverse to the interests of the petitioner, the petitioner will have the liberty to assail the same, albeit, as per law. 29. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 30. We may note, that Mr Kumar concedes, that inadvertently, in the prayer clause, there is a reference of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. To our minds, that by itself will not come in the way of the petitioner, as it is a typographical error. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
