TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravi R. Tripathi and J.C. Upadhyaya, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri Kamal Trivedi, Sr. Advocate for M/s. Trivedi Gupta, for the Petitioner. Ms. Amee Yajnik, for the Respondent. [Order per: Ravi R. Tripathi, J. (Oral)]. - In the morning, a request was made on behalf of Ms. Amee Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent for keeping the matter back, no reason was mentioned as to why the matter is required to be kept back. The matter is notified at item no.1 on the 'admission notice board'. Besides, the learned senior advocate Mr.Kamal B. Trivedi appearing for the petitioner has inconvenience as he has other matter fixed at 02.00 PM. 2. The matter is filed in the year 2008. Reply is also filed. The matter has remained pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no reason for which the petitioner can be said to have over-valued the goods in question. The figure which is suggested in Show Cause Notice is Rs.6000/-, per unit of the product, whereas, according to the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology the cost of the petitioner-unit is Rs.3,50,000/-, according to the Cost Accountants the same comes to Rs.5,89,632/- per unit. Thus, there is no comparison of the 'cost per unit' suggested by the two experts vis-a-vis 'cost per unit' suggested in the Show Cause Notice. 5. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in A.I.R. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act effective, and till the Designated Courts are appointed to try offences and other proceedings under the Act under section 23 of the said Act, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla will be the competent authority to issue Show Cause Notice and to adjudicate the same. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to unit situated in SEZ is totally misconceived and unjustified. It is further submitted that Circular No.32/97-Cus dated 01.09.1997 has been issued for adjudication of cases pertaining to Export Processing Zone (EPZ) and the same would also apply to SEZ units till a detailed regulation is framed under the SEZ Act in this regard and till sections 20, 21 and 22 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1997 will be applicable to the facts of the present case after SEZ Act, 2005 came into force. Besides, the learned advocate for the respondents was put a specific query as to what prejudice is caused, to whom by the so called over-valuation of the 'cost of petitioner-unit'. The learned advocate for the respondents submitted that the case of the respondent is that 'valuation of product per unit' will attract section 14 of the Customs Act. Therefore, it will be in fitness of things if the petitioner is directed to explain the same to the authority who issued the Show Cause Notice in question. The submission is prima facie, found to be not acceptable for the simple reason that after SEZ Act, 2005 coming into force wherein specific authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
