Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Gurdeep Kaur Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

2015 (9) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT

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 respect to provisional clearance. Further, the impugned order dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpugned 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. (C) 4152/2015 - Dated:- 17-9-2015 - Ved Prakash Vaish, J. For the Pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ight 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 parts under Bill of Entry No. 8242439 dated 09.02.2015 and MAWB No. 176- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Preventive (Alpha Group) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ately 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 Act, 1962, but also contrary to the facts of the case. The abovementi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds 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 Kumar Jha, representative of CHA and it was found that the imported g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 petitioner was informed of the same vide letter dated 06.04.2015 issued under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 06.04.2015 was not put on hold/withdrawn or revoked. 7. It was lastly contende .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r 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 order: Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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