TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Glassware Import Finalization Order, Emphasizes Due Process</h1> <h3>M/s. ABA International Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> M/s. ABA International Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2018 (361) E.L.T. 32 (Bom.) Issues:Challenging an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the finalization of a Bill of Entry for glassware import from Indonesia, involving allegations of under valuation and discount impermissibility.Analysis:The petitioner, an importer with an Import Export Code, challenged an order finalizing a Bill of Entry for glassware import from Indonesia, which involved provisional assessment and clearance under a Bank Guarantee. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued show-cause notices to various importers for under valuation, including the petitioner, but the charges were dropped by adjudicating authorities due to lack of evidence. The petitioner expected a show-cause notice but received a finalization order after 18 years, demanding a higher assessable value and additional customs duty.The petitioner argued that the finalization order was illegal as it bypassed the requirement of issuing a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent contended that the petitioner could appeal the order but failed to address the absence of a show-cause notice. The court examined the original file, noting the completion of the provisional assessment process under Section 18, which required a show-cause notice before finalizing the duty. The court found no show-cause notice in the file, rendering the finalization order without legal sanction.The court held the impugned order as illegal and lacking jurisdiction, allowing the petition and quashing the order to prevent manifest injustice. The court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order, emphasizing the importance of due process and legal requirements in customs matters. The ruling was in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
