9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Customs (Appeals) being Order-in-Appeal No. C.CUS.97/06 bearing Ref. No. C3/49/0/2006-SEA dated 16-2-2006. 2. The short facts of the case as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner entered into a sales contract bearing No. IE/PSR-RS03/2005 dated 17-2-2005 with its supplier, M/s. International Enterprises, Hongkong for the supply of 2,77,000 Kgs. (277 Mts.) of Mulberry raw silk of 3A and above grade. The entire contracted quantity was required to be shipped by 30-9-2006 and the price for the entire contracted quantity was fixed at USD 13.50/Kg-CIF. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner had imported about 60% of the total contracted quantity. The Bills of Entry f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value declared by the petitioner and fixing the value for the purpose of assessment at USD 22.36/Kg-CIF. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai along with a request for early hearing/disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Commissioner passed Order-in-Appeal No. C.CUS.97/06 bearing Ref.No. C3/49/0/2006-SEA dated 16-2-2006 setting aside the order of the third respondent and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, holding that the goods imported under contract dated 17-2-2005 were required to be assessed on the basis of the value of USD 13.94/Kg-CIF, as had been accepted in the past by the petitioner. Immediately, on receipt of this order, the petitioner addressed a letter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agnanam. 5. Mr. Habibulla Basha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the following passage in the above said judgment. "The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
