2018 (11) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d M/s. Hatimi Steels beaching could not take place. As a result, M/s. Hatimi Steels filed a Special Civil Suit No. 3/2014 in the Ld. Special Judge at Alang. M/s. Hatimi Steels vide Addendum No. 01 dated 15.09.2014 cancelled the MOA dated 30.05.2014 and withdrew all their rights. Vide addendum No. 2/2014 to MOA dated 30.05.2014 both, M/s. Hatimi Steels and the overseas seller mutually cancelled their MOA dated 30.05.2014. M/s. Sai Shipping Services produced MOA dated 25.09.2014 and informed the department that their principal had advised to re-sale the vessel to M/s. Prakash Re-rollers Pvt. Limited and requested for amendment in IGM. The Deputy Commissioner, Bhavnagar at the request of M/s. Sai Shipping Services substituted the name of the i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laim was returned by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 19.03.2015 stating that the appellant has not challenged the order-in-original dated 30.09.2014. Therefore, the same attained finality and in the light of this, the refund claim does not appear to be maintainable and liable to be returned to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that decision was taken by the Deputy Commissioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the lower authority with direction for considering all the facts and the documents and to consider the request of the appellant for issuance of show cause notice and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... made by both the sides and perused the record. I find that Deputy Commissioner of Customs, at the time of amendment of IGM had clearly raised objection on the valuation and for which a suitable and speaking order was passed whereby the value of original import was maintained. Therefore, subsequently when the bill of entry was filed, the value was declared in accordance with the order of IGM amendment. In my view, once there was lis between department and the assessee and by passing a speaking order, the Deputy Commissioner held that value for the purpose of customs duty shall be the value adopted originally. The impugned order came to be passed thereafter. Unless and until the order on IGM amendment is challenged/reversed, the appellant wi....