9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entory on December 10, 1989 of the goods imported out of which Serial Nos. 18 to 28 have been found to be not belonging to baggage items and the said items have been valued at Rs. 7,970. The value of the baggage was fixed at Rs. 9,835. However, after adjudication of the duty and imposition of fine by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport, the Superintendent of Customs (Administration), Calcutta Airport refused to clear the imported goods of the petitioner on the alleged grounds that the petitioner's said imported goods are undervalued, notwithstanding the valuation, adjudication and imposition of duties and fine in lieu of confiscation made by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport. Being aggrieved, the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said order, has also not come into force. In that event, Section 129DA(2) which was invoked, at the very first instance, as may be seen from page 14 of the appeal papers in Annexure "A", by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport for obtaining authorisation from the Collector of Customs for preferring the appeal under Section 129D(4), is invalid. Thereby the entire appeal falls through. Fact remains that Section 129DA(2) is not available to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport, who cannot be called an aggrieved person and that the Collector of Customs has not acted of his own motion, a copy of the said order is annexure "B" to the Supplementary Affidavit. (e) It appears from the notice of the appeal that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector (Appeals) and amounts to manoeuvering. (i) The fine of Rs. 4,000 in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, already paid cannot be reopened for the purpose of reimposition of larger amount of fine; no personal penalty can be freshly imposed in view of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Calcutta Airport, on December 13, 1989 completely exonerating the writ petitioner from any attempt of evasion of chargeable duty; the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport has allowed redemption of the detained baggage on payment of fine of Rs. 4,000 in lieu of confiscation by the said order dated December 13, 1989. The said order of redemption cannot be countermanded after payment of fine in lieu of con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f common imports invoice, price-lists could not be found on market enquiry. However, market sources contacted and time was consumed as the documents could only be collected from abroad. As the writ petitioner made an application for release of the goods, the goods were examined on the basis of the additional evidence as furnished by the Special Intelligence Unit. The respondent No. 2 Collector of Customs by a letter of authority authorised Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport to file an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act as he was satisfied that the order was not proper. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) passed an order disposing of the appeal by holding, amongst others, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of adjudication, the writ petitioner has come to this Court. In the meantime, an appeal was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta Airport against the aforesaid order. Leave was granted to challenge the impugned order in appeal. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) passed order dated 2nd March, 1990 has held that the value of several goods imported by the petitioner was declared and the same was assessed prima facie low and the same needs to be increased. Some of the price-lists annexed in the appeal petition revealed the higher value of such goods abroad. Since the goods are kept at the Airport the extent of such under-valuation may be determined after examining the goods physically. It has also been found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 129A shall, so far as may be, apply to such application. 4. By looking at the facts of the case and the scope of Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Act this Court does not find any justification for the Assistant Collector of Customs, Airport to prefer an appeal and it has got no jurisdiction to prefer an appeal. It is not appreciated as to how the Collector of Customs can direct the Deputy Collector of Customs to initiate any proceedings de novo to examine the matter afresh and to impose a fine further by giving the only chance of hearing to the appellant, the Assistant Collector of Customs. The conclusion of the order of the Appellate Authority is ex facie, bad in law. The petitioner had imported goods in a baggage and upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
