9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 learned Single Judge directed to release of 55% of four consignments out of nine consignments and directed adjudication be expedite and complete within 6 weeks. 4.On 10-5-2000 the Appeal Court directed to release of 55% of the rest of the consignments. On 25-4-2000 respondents also issued show cause notices covering the eight consignments. On 11-9-2000 the hearing of show cause notices were assigned to Commissioner of Customs (Air Port) and Board directed that complete the adjudication before 31-12-2000. On 15-2-2001 Appeal Court directed to complete the adjudication within two months. Again on 29-6-2001 Appeal Court directed that complete adjudication within two months, if adjudication is not completed the appellant can ask for release of goods. In spite of this direction the adjudication has not been completed. 5.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as there is inaction and undue delay on the part of the department the appellant is entitled for release of goods. He further submits that the goods of the appellant should be valued as has been valued in the similar cases of other parties who imported the similar goods. The lowest value should be taken for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.In case of Kishan Kumar Daga v. Collector of Customs [1994 (71) E.L.T. 354 (Cal.)] in para 9 the Court has observed that if abnormal delay is there in adjudication, the principle of justice delayed is justice denied is applicable. Relevant para 9 reads as under :- In"9. my opinion this is a classical case where the principle that delaying of justice is denial of justice is directly and clearly applicable. Here is a petitioner who has previously imported 25 similar consignments who does everything to get release of his imported consignment and is met with by sheer governmental error and neglect. He has no remedy. His adversaries are the Union of India and are too powerful. No suit will lie against them in these matters. No complaint against them in these matters. No complaint against them is of any value. The petitioner has at last approached the Writ Court. If the Writ Court refuses them relief then the petitioner might well ask what is the system of justice doing in India." 12.This Court further ordered in para 12 for release of goods in such cases. The relevant para reads as under : In"12. the present circumstances an interim order is a must. The respondents will releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g valuations are quoted and it has been held in Kajoria Exports Ltd. (supra) that quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. The fact is that the respondents were and still are clearing the spares, which are the subject matter of the instant application more or less at the same price as declared by the petition and others. Some of such bills of entries evidencing the aforesaid fact have been annexed with the writ petition at pages 153 to 205. The petitioner has also relied on some more bills of entries evidencing the purchase of identical goods more or less at similar price. Documents evidencing such importations at more or less similar price before and after filing of the writ petition have been produced before this Court. Hence the charge of under valuation is misconceived and cannot be sustained. The respondents cannot ignore the basic materials in the form of their previous orders and decisions and proceed on the basis of their ipse dixit. Examples set out in the adjudication order pertains to small consignments whereas in the instant case bulk quantities were contracted for and a part of that was imported by way of par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared by the petitioner. Thus the action of the respondents is arbitrary. The petitioners have also relied on Bill of Entry evidencing purchase of identical goods at more or less similar price. On these facts it is contended that Customs Authorities being creature of statute are bound by their own precedence. Once the Customs authorities have accepted the value of a particular item it becomes a precedent and subsequently it cannot held that the valuation is not correct. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Sen relied on a decision of this Court in Kajaria Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Ors., reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 231 wherein it has been held that for under-invoicing Customs authorities may refuse clearance. But, quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. To arrive at a decision of under-invoicing the concerned authority must act reasonably when a few months earlier the Authority cleared the goods to others at the same invoice amount, the Authority cannot take the plea of under-invoicing." 18.In case of Karan Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs, Cochin [1998 (97) E.L.T. 42 (Ker.)] in para 11 Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules; and (d) the buyer and seller are not related, or where the buyer and seller are related, that transaction value is acceptable for customs purposes under the provisions of Sub-rule (3)." 20.In Circular No. 84/95-Customs, dated 25-7-1995 provides in para 3 that the board desires that whenever it becomes necessary to detain the imported cargo for long time period pending completion of enquiry/ investigation, such cargo should be removed to a customs warehouse in terms of the provisions of Section 9 of the Customs Act 1961. For this purpose the cargo can also be removed from the container and the container can be released for use by the containers agents/other importers. In this case the goods were not allowed to shift in the warehouses, they were allowed to be shifted in the warehouses only as per direction of the Court and on account of mistake of the department the appellant suffered loss of Rs. 30,40,855/- by way of demurrage charges. 21.In letter-dated 8-9-2000 Board has directed the Commissioner of Customs (Port) to complete the process of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
