TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered contract and the earlier show cause notice issued by the Customs authorities for enhancing the invoice value has been quashed and set aside by the CESTAT [2005 (180) E.L.T. 394 (Tri. - Mumbai)] and, therefore, the present show cause notice issued for enhancing the invoice value for the balance quantity of goods imported under the registered contract is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Since it is contended that the issue raised in the show cause notice is already adjudicated, we thought it fit to entertain the writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on February 25, 2002, it had entered into a contract with M/s. IMX Port National trading Corporation, Canada for import of 5000 Metric Tonnes of LDPE/HDPE/PP M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to show cause as to why the invoice value of US Dollar 225 should not be rejected and the goods be assessed at US Dollar 381.6 per Metric Tonne. The petitioner resisted the action of the Customs authorities and requested for acceptance of the invoice value. 8. On adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva by his order dated April 3, 2004, rejected the contention of the petitioner and assessed the four bills of entry at US Dollar 288 per Metric Tonne as against US Dollar 225 per Metric Tonne shown in the invoice. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (A) on October 30, 2003. Further, appeal filed by the petitioner was however, allowed by the CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal on a question relating to the valuation of the goods is final and binding on the Customs Department unless the same is stayed and set aside by the higher authorities. In the present case, the order passed by the CESTAT in respect of the part of the consignment has been accepted by the Revenue and, therefore, it is not open to the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice in respect of the balance consignment covered under 45 bills of entry cleared during the period from July 1, 2002 to May 11, 2004. 11. Mr. Pakale learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Customs authorities should be permitted to adjudicate upon the show cause notice which is impugned in the present petition. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities have every reason to believe that the value of the goods covered under 45 bills of entry could be different from the registered contract. He submitted that out of 45 bills of entry, the supplier of goods in respect of 35 bills of entry are different and not the same supplier with whom the petitioner had entered into a contract on February 25, 2002. Accordingly, the Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the show cause notice must be permitted to be adjudicated in accordance with law. 13. Having heard Counsel on both the sides, we are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioners that the goods covered by CESTAT order dated December 10, 2004 and the goods covered under the 45 bills of entry which are subject matter of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the invoice value should be accepted. Thus, in our opinion, the contention of the petitioner that the goods must be considered to have been imported under the registered contract and without adjudication the invoice value should be accepted as per the decision of the CESTAT dated December 10, 2004 cannot be accepted. 14. However, it appears that the impugned show cause notice has been issued mechanically and without application of mind. The goods which are subject matter of the impugned show cause notice were allowed clearance provisionally pending investigation on the petitioner furnishing revenue deposit and bank guarantee. On completion of investigation it is open to the Revenue to pass the final assessment order either by accepti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoice value cannot be quashed and set aside in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice dated March 1, 2005 which is totally vague and bereft of any particulars for rejecting the invoice value is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to finalise the assessment in respect of the goods covered under the 45 bills of entry which were cleared on provisional assessment basis in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that the quashing of the show cause notice dated March 1, 2005 will not preclude the department to issue fresh show cause notice for rejecting the invoice value before passing the final assessment order by disclosing the material, if any, for rejecting the invoice value. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
