TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill of Entry dated 30th April, 2013 describing the goods imported as general purpose machinery oil belonging to tariff heading 27101980 @ US$ 450 per MT. On the aforesaid basis the writ petitioner deposited on 3rd May, 2013 a sum of Rs. 5,32,064/-. It is not in dispute that two several bills of entry were lodged on the same day, but only one of them has been disclosed. The authorities presumably were not agreeable to accept the declaration made in the bills of entry at its face value. The writ petitioner in the circumstances wrote a letter dated 6th May, 2013 which reads as follows:- " Reference to the consignment covered under referred 2 Bill of Entry. We agree for enhancement of Unit price from USD 500 to USD 1000 per MT. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities may take in accordance with law. It appears from the office note dated 6th June, 2013 that the Customs authorities held that the writ petitioner had mis-described the goods and also had them under valued. The authorities, therefore, adjudicated the value of the goods at US$ 1000 per MT instead of US$ 450 MT. The Tariff heading was also changed from 27101980 to 34031990. Based on the aforesaid order of adjudication, the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods with an option to the writ petitioner to redeem the same subject to payment of fine of Rs. 17 lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 8,50,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The office note dated 14th June, 2013 appearing at page 64 of the Stay Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the letter dated 6th May, 2013 and 8th May, 2013 both written by the writ petitioner to the Customs officials, correctness whereof was not disputed by Mr.Chowdhury. Therefore, the case that the writ petitioner was forced to give up his right made out by the writ petitioner is altogether false. The right to prefer an appeal is doubtful because the orders were passed by the authorities pursuant to the request made by the writ petitioner itself. We should not, however, be deemed to have expressed any final opinion in that regard because the appeal, if any, is to be filed before the Tribunal and not before us. Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to refund is also a matter, which is not the subject matter of this writ petition. Therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall be served,- (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by [registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Commissioner of Customs]; (b) if the order, decision, summons of notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house." No other statutory right was relied upon by the writ petitioner. Section 153, according to us, lays down the procedure as regards service of any order or decision, we do not think, it creates any substantive right in favour of the writ petitioner. Even assuming that Section 153 lays down a duty upon the authorities to serve a copy of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s had been provided for by a statute subject to the condition that no public interest is involved therein. Whenever waiver is pleaded it is for the party pleading the same to show that an agreement waiving the right in consideration of some compromise came into being. Statutory right, however, may also be waived by his conduct." Mr.Chowdhury submitted that such order, if any, as far as his client is concerned, is evidenced by two Office Notes dated 6th June, 2013 and 14th June, 2013 appearing from pages 63 and 64 of the stay petition. Since the respondents did not use any affidavit either before the Trial Court or before this Court nor did Mr.Saraf dispute the correctness of the contents of the Office Notes appearing at pages 63 and 6....