2025 (1) TMI 1225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Cus ADC, dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P1), whereby the learned authority has passed the following order: "iii) I reject the value of Rs.1,28,86,410/- declared for 19136 pieces of Printed Circuit Boards in respect of export goods under the Shipping Bill Nos.6808152, 6806389 both dated 09.09.2019 and 6873498 dated 12.09.2019, under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 and I re-determine the value of 31,050 pieces as Nil (Rs.0/-) of Printed Circuit Boards seized under Panchanama dated 16.09.2019 in respect of export goods covered under the Shipping Bill Nos.6808152, 6806389 both dated 09.09.2019 and 6873498 dated 12.09.2019, under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er was served with show cause notice dated 05.03.2020 by the Joint Director, DRI New Delhi. The petitioner preferred representations dated 28.08.2020 and 04.09.2020 (Annexures P6 and P7) and requested to provide additional documents which were relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the matter. 7. On 14.09.2020, the petitioner submitted a detailed interim reply to the show cause notice and asked for permission to cross-examine the Chartered Engineers, who conducted the valuation and submitted the report thereof dated 16.09.2019. It was also prayed for cross-examination of Panchas of the panchanama dated 16.09.2019. 8. On 22.12.2020, personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and it specifically reiterated its request for cross....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was imposed on the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 26.11.2021 was pending consideration, in all fairness, the authority should have waited for the outcome of the said appeal. However, the authority had decided the matter in the same manner and without assigning adequate reasons as to why the Chartered Engineers and Panchas should not be permitted to be cross examined, passed the impugned Order-in-Original. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts and circumstances on the strength of which the first Order-in-Original was passed remained the same when the impugned Order-in-Original was passed. Thus, the imposition of higher penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'Tribunal'), we do not consider it apposite to examine the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order in this petition. However, given the manner in which the penalty has been computed and the financial condition of the petitioner, we consider it apposite to direct the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's appeal without any pre-deposit." 18. The similar view is taken in the judgment of Mohammed Akmam Uddin Ahmed (supra). 19. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: i) The petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2022 ....