Court sets aside order due to violations, emphasizes due process in customs matters.

The court set aside the order dated 23.09.2020 due to violations of natural justice and statutory infractions. The case involved the quashing of the customs order, release of imported goods, compliance issues, and valuation disputes. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and statutory provisions, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer. The writ petition was allowed, highlighting the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in customs proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs.
2. Direction to release imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.8311310 dated 28.07.2020.
3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Requirement of import license and Equipment Type Approval (ETA) compliance.
5. Rejection and redetermination of the declared value of imported goods.
6. Applicability of Section 124 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
7. Availability of an alternative remedy through appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order Dated 23.09.2020:
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 23.09.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, which rejected the declared unit price of imported smart plugs and redetermined the value, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The court found that the order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice as mandated by Section 124 of the Customs Act, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

2. Direction to Release Imported Goods:
The petitioner requested the release of imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.8311310 dated 28.07.2020. Initially, interim relief was granted by the court on 03.11.2020, allowing the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount of customs duty declared, redemption fine, and penalty imposed.

3. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without issuing a show-cause notice and without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized that the absence of a written notice and the failure to follow due procedure constituted a breach of natural justice.

4. Requirement of Import License and Equipment Type Approval (ETA) Compliance:
The customs department raised objections regarding the requirement of an import license and ETA compliance for the imported smart plugs. The petitioner argued that the products did not generate wi-fi or Bluetooth signals and thus did not require such licenses. However, the customs department was not satisfied with these declarations and insisted on further compliance.

5. Rejection and Redetermination of Declared Value:
The Joint Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared unit prices of the imported goods and redetermined the values at higher rates, leading to the imposition of differential duty, confiscation, and penalties. The court noted that this redetermination was done without following the prescribed procedure under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

6. Applicability of Section 124 of the Customs Act and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:
Section 124 mandates issuing a written notice before confiscating goods or imposing penalties, which was not followed in this case. Rule 12 requires the customs officer to intimate the importer in writing about the grounds for doubting the declared value and provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court found that these statutory provisions were not adhered to, rendering the impugned order invalid.

7. Availability of an Alternative Remedy:
The respondents argued that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. However, the court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially when there is a clear breach of natural justice. The court referenced the Forbo Siegling Movement Systems India Pvt. Ltd. case to support this position.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2020 due to statutory infractions and violations of principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, directing that the hearing be assigned to a different officer. The writ petition was allowed, and the court emphasized the need to follow the due process as mandated by the relevant statutory provisions.

---