2016 (9) TMI 673 - HC - Customs

Imported Goods Reassessment Order Quashed for Lack of Hearing Opportunity

The court found that the reassessment order of imported goods was issued in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not granted a ... Re-assessment of value of goods - re-calculation of duty - order passed under section 17 of the act or section 18 of the act - opportunity of being heard - Rule 12 of the Customs Valuations (Determination Value of Imported Goods) Rules 2007 - alternative remedy of appeal - Retail Sale Price - bill of entry - Held that: - the petitioner was not been afforded proper opportunity of hearing, the order dated 18.03.2016 for re-assessment of goods is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority for fresh consideration. Perishable nature of goods - release of goods - provisional assessment of goods - Section 18 of the Act - Held that: - direction to the competent authority to provisionally assess the goods imported within a period of seven days and release the same to the petitioner on complying with the procedure required to be followed after provisional assessment. The final assessment under Section 17 B of the Act be framed thereafter, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner. Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in reassessment of imported goods.In this case, the petitioner challenged an order reassessing the value of goods imported without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner argued that the order was passed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, but no hearing was granted. The respondents contended that the order was actually under Section 17, and no hearing is required unless specifically requested. The court noted that the order was indeed passed in violation of natural justice principles as no hearing was provided. The petitioner responded to queries regarding valuation, but the order was passed without further communication or hearing. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the lack of proper hearing as the key issue.The court observed that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case before the reassessment order was issued. Despite the petitioner's request for provisional assessment and a speaking order after goods clearance, the order was passed without any additional dialogue or hearing. The court highlighted that the petitioner's right to be heard was essential, especially in matters of customs valuation. The lack of proper hearing before the reassessment decision was a clear violation of natural justice principles, leading to the order being set aside for fresh consideration.Additionally, the court addressed the urgency of the situation, considering the perishable nature of the imported goods with a limited shelf life. The petitioner requested provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Act to expedite the process due to the imminent expiration of the goods. Despite objections from the respondents, the court agreed with the petitioner's request and directed the competent authority to provisionally assess the goods within seven days and release them to the petitioner. The final assessment under Section 17 B of the Act was to follow, ensuring a proper opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. This decision balanced the need for timely action with the petitioner's right to a fair hearing, resolving the issue effectively.