TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bing 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. As the cargo is incurring several demurrage and detent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Petition goes to show that the goods imported by the writ petitioner were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms 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, we are not called upon to express any opinion with regard thereto. The petitioner prayed for a Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 the order, we think the writ petitioner waived its right in that regard by his letters dated 6th May, 2013 and 8th May, 2013 discussed ab....