Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 490 (Del.) - Writ jurisdiction where alternate remedy is available - Valuation of goods - Provisional release of goods - Execution of bond for re-determined value of the imported goods - Held that:- On a bare perusal of Section 128 of Customs Act it is manifestly clear that an appeal lies in respect of any “decision or order passed under the Customs Act”. In my view the impugned order falls within the description of “order or decision” with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erms of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal against the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 shall lie to the Commissioner of Appeals within sixty days from the date of its communication to him. - petitioner has approached this Court under the mistaken view that remedy of appeal is not available under the Customs Act, 1962, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may prefer an appeal before the concerned appropriate authority within four weeks - Decided against appellant. - W. P. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orted goods i.e. ₹ 54,48,608/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs forty eight thousand six hundred eight) supported with cash deposit of differential duty of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) and bank guarantee of ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) with auto renewal clause. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that vide panchnama dated 11-12.02.2015, the concerned seizing officer seized the consignment of goods imported by the petitioner namely auto motor par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 08.03.2015 addressed to the Commission of Customs (Prev.), with its copy to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), the petitioner once again requested the respondent for the provisional release of her goods while complaining about the behavior of an official of the department. The petitioner sent another letter dated 25.03.2015, to the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Prev.). On 01.04.2015 yet another letter was handed over which was replied to vide impugned order/letter dated 06.04.2015 by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4,00,000/-, but, with a view to deny the provisional release, deliberately those goods have been evaluated at ₹ 54,48,608/-, without disclosing as to how the department has reached at that value. It is contended that in the absence of any reasoned order, the said valuation of the goods amounting to ₹ 54,48,608/-, while rejecting the transaction value and while ignoring the earlier and contemporary import of similar goods, is not only contrary to the Valuation Rules under the Customs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the goods are not released to the petitioner immediately they would deteriorate in quality and would lose their marketability. 5. Per Contra, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent contended that a writ in the nature of certiorari is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner s consignment was examined on 11-12.02.2015 at Air Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi in the presence of Mr. Hemant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. To arrive at the value of the imported shipment, the petitioner was summoned on 27.02.2015, 05.03.2015, 31.03.2015 and 13.04.2015 in order to provide the requisite information, however, no records have been furnished till date. In the absence of proper records/documents which should have been provided by the petitioner, the provisional value and differential provisional duty of the goods was arrived as per laid down procedures in such cases and the petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Benz India Pvt. Ltd. inspected the samples of spare parts and out of seven samples they found five parts genuine and two parts as counterfeit violating the Intellectual Property Rights of Mercedes Benz India. The goods in question were not seized for IPR violation but were seized for mis-declaration of quantity and brands as per Panchnama dated 12.02.2015 and the IPR angle came into play at a very later stage. Since the matter is sub judice before this Court, therefore, the order dated 06.04.201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

examining the merits of the present case, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under:- 128. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version