2016 (4) TMI 1106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e/godown and office premises of the three Petitioners on 6th September, 2010 resulting in recovery of several records/documents, computers/hard discs, laptops and pen drives as well as rubber stamps. During the search 212, 20 and 86 pieces of old and used photocopier machines were recovered from the premises. Apart from that, 210 pieces of cartridges and 6580 kgs. of toner were recovered. Further, 41 pieces of old and used photocopier machines were also recovered. Investigations were commenced and statements were recorded which showed that the Petitioners had been importing old and used photocopier machines by undervaluing the goods up to the extent of 50%. In the SCN issued to the Petitioners on 20th December, 2013, the plea of the DRI was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....disposed of the applications but granted liberty to the Petitioners to apply afresh "after the decision of the High Court in the matter". 5. In response to the notice issued in the present petition, the DRI filed a counter affidavit on 5th May, 2015 where, inter alia, it stated that a wrong statement was made by the Petitioner before the CCESC when the matter was heard on 5th December, 2014 that the Petitioners had already agitated the correctness of the Corrigendum before this Court. According to the Respondents, a copy of the present petition was served on them only on 11th February, 2015 and therefore, no writ petition appears to have been filed by 5th December, 2014. 6. In light of the above averments in the counter affidavit, this Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (5) of section 127C, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of any officer of customs or Central Excise Officer, as the case may be, under this Act or in the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), as the case may be, in relation to the case." 10. DRI does not dispute that by its order dated 24th April, 2014 the CCESC decided to proceed with the applications filed by the Petitioners before it in exercise of its powers under Section 127-C(1) of the Act. The DRI also does not dispute that under Section 127-F(2) of the Act, once the CCESC had decided to proceed with the applications....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication of the imported goods was changed and the duty demand correspondingly increased. 15. Consequently, the Court is of the view that the impugned Corrigendum/Addendum dated 12th August, 2014 is plainly unsustainable in law as it contrary to Section 127F(2) of the Act. 16. It was then contended that the Petitioners ought to have agitated the validity of the Corrigendum/Addendum before the CCESC itself. This submission appears to be misconceived since no such Corrigendum/Addendum could have been issued in the first place when the CCESC was seized of the matter. The question of the CCESC deciding the validity of such Corrigendum does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Mr Satish Aggarwala then submitted that the DR....