2013 (5) TMI 42 - HC - Customs

Court sets aside order requiring Bill of Entry disclosure before determining customs duty value.

M/s. AJINOMOTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (SPECIAL VALUATION BRANCH)

The Court set aside clause 'b' of the impugned order, directing the respondent to provide a copy of the Bill of Entry to the petitioner before determining ... Transaction Value as per Bill of Entry, filed by a third party - Held that:- The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had not been in a position to show that a copy of the Bill of Entry No.539734, had been furnished to the petitioner before the value of the imported goods had been fixed, based on the said Bill of Entry filed by a third party - It is seen that proper opportunity had not been given to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the respondent. The respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the bill of entry to the petitioner, before fixing the value of the goods imported by the petitioner, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for the levy of the customs duty payable by the petitioner - The other clauses of the impugned order shall remain without any alteration - On receipt of the copy of the said Bill of Entry, the petitioner shall raise its objections, if any, within a period of ten days thereafter - On receipt of the objections to be raised by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible - The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Issues:Challenge to the validity of a clause in the impugned order based on non-provision of relevant documents to the petitioner before fixing the value of imported goods.Analysis:The main contention in this case was that clause 'b' of the impugned order was arbitrary and invalid due to the non-provision of a copy of the Bill of Entry to the petitioner, which was used to determine the value of the goods imported. The petitioner argued that not providing this crucial document hindered their ability to challenge the decision effectively. The respondent, in their counter affidavit, stated that the Department was not obligated to provide such documents before passing the impugned order. However, it was noted that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to contest the decision based on the Bill of Entry filed by a third party.The Court observed that the lack of provision of the Bill of Entry to the petitioner before determining the value of the imported goods deprived the petitioner of a proper chance to challenge the decision. Consequently, the Court set aside clause 'b' of the impugned order and directed the respondent to furnish a copy of the Bill of Entry to the petitioner before fixing the value for customs duty purposes. The other clauses of the order remained unchanged. The respondent was instructed to provide the copy of the Bill of Entry within ten days of receiving the Court's order. The petitioner was granted ten days after receiving the document to raise any objections. Upon receiving the objections, the respondent was required to consider and decide on them promptly and in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 was closed as per the Court's order. This judgment highlights the importance of providing relevant documents to parties involved in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process.