TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1962 ["Customs Act"], in relation to the smuggling of 5010 bottles of foreign liquor, allegedly concealed within a consignment of foodstuff and beverages, imported under Bill of Entry No. 795029 dated 26th May, 2009 at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The arrested persons were produced before the Duty Magistrate on the same date and were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, they were granted bail subject to certain conditions. 2.2. Respondent No. 2 filed an application before ACMM, seeking revaluation of the goods. DRI filed a reply opposing the said request. However, by order dated 12th January, 2010, the application was allowed in following terms: "This is an application for seeking directions for the revaluation of the seized case property. It is inter-alia stated in the application that a panchnama of the liquor allegedly imported by the applicant was prepared on 02.06.2009 and the value of the imported liquor is determined by DRI is excessive and arbitrary. DRI valued the liquor more-than rupees one crore at the time of remand of the petitioner Harsh Vasant. The said value was brought down by the DRI itself to Rs. 83,94,779/- during the hearing of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 18th August, 2011. 2.5. Separately, the DRI filed an application under Section 110 (1B) of the Customs Act seeking certification of the seized goods. However, the ACMM dismissed the application by order dated 5th April, 2010, inter alia observing that the certification proceedings could not be conducted in the absence of the arrested individual. 2.6. The DRI assailed the said order by filing Revision Petition No. 312/2010, which was allowed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 2^nd June, 2010. The ACMM was directed to issue notice to the concerned person (Harsh Vasant) and to proceed with the certification proceedings expeditiously. The aforesaid order reads as follows: "This revision petition directed against the order dated 5th April, 2010 whereby the learned ACMM has dismissed the DRI's application under Section 110 (1B) of the Customs Act moved for the purpose of getting certification of the Court in respect of the seized foreign liquor from ICD Tuglakabad. As per the case of the DRI, the importer of the consignment of the seized foreign liquor was M/s Swaraj International. In connection with that seizure of foreign liquor one Harsh Vatan was a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.9. Eventually, by Impugned order 27th September, 2012, both the application of the DRI and Respondent No. 2 seeking compliance of order dated 12th January, 2010 were allowed. The parties were directed to appear before the Court of MM, New Delhi on 01st October, 2012 for conducting certification proceedings under Section 110 (1B) of Customs Act. Further, the Department was directed to revalue the goods through an appraiser in terms of the International Market value of the seized goods on such date as fixed by the court of MM. 2.10. On 04th October, 2012, the MM observed that in view of the direction for revaluation, the Court would need to be held at ICD, Tughlakabad where the seized goods were stored. The matter was accordingly adjourned for awaiting permission from the High Court. The order dated 04th October, 2012 reads as follows: "By order dated 27.09.2012 Ld ACMM has issued directions for carrying out certification of panchnama and also for revaluation of the goods. The court has to be held at ICD Tughlakabad as the goods are lying in-a container there. Ld SPP for the complainant submits that Permission in this regard is to be sought from the honourable High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DRI itself to INR 87 lakhs, during the bail proceedings, ostensibly due to revised rates applied by duty-free shops. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 had produced bills from a DSIDC outlet reflecting the market value of the seized goods as approximately INR 23 lakhs. The sharp downward revision of INR 13 lakhs within two days, it is urged, exposes the arbitrary and mechanical nature of the DRI's valuation exercise. Mr. Gaur further submits that the Respondents relied on data from the National Information Data Base (NIDB) which indicated the international transaction value of the seized liquor to be approximately INR 22.96 lakhs. It is contended that this data conclusively demonstrates that the DRI's valuation grossly inflated the real value of the goods and lacked any defensible basis in the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. 7. As regards the Petitioner's contention that the valuation dispute stood settled by the adjudication order, Mr. Gaur submits that such an argument is fundamentally misconceived. He points out that the adjudication order neither re-evaluates the seized goods nor authenticates the original valuation made in the panchnama. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seized in this matter and this petition having become infructuous. Dismissed as withdrawn." 12. Notably, the Respondent No. 2 was duly represented by counsel at that stage and did not dispute the basis on which the withdrawal was sought. The withdrawal was not unconditional; rather, it was predicated entirely upon the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. It was on this understanding that the petition was permitted to be withdrawn without adjudication on merits. 13. However, despite this development, Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a fresh application on 24th March, 2012, seeking compliance with the order dated 12th January, 2010 for revaluation. The said request was entertained and ultimately allowed by the ACMM vide the impugned order. In these circumstances, the DRI cannot be estopped from challenging the fresh direction for revaluation, which effectively revives a controversy that the DRI had considered concluded. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the objection raised to the maintainability of the present petition. 14. Turning now to the substantive question, whether the ACMM, by the impugned order, was justified in directing revaluation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore rupees. In my considered opinion, once the orders directing the complainant to revalue the goods have been passed and the revision against the said order stands dismissed then the complainant department has to revalue the goods. Thus, both the applications in consideration are entitled to be allowed. Let the file be placed before the Court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Ld. MM, New Delhi to carry out the certification proceedings as envisaged U/s 110 (1-B) of the Customs Act and on the date fixed by Ld. MM for certification proceedings the department shall revalue the goods through an appraiser in terms of International Market Value of the seized goods. The parties shall appear before the Court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Ld. MM, New Delhi on 01.10.2012 at 2pm." 15. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ACMM's direction for revaluation rests substantially on the perceived discrepancy in the valuation figures furnished by the DRI. The Court notes that the valuation initially indicated by the DRI at the time of remand exceeded INR 1 crore, whereas during the hearing of the bail application, the value was subsequently revised to approximately INR 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....op, it becomes evident that the so-called 'anomaly' in valuation, which weighed with the ACMM, had a reasonable explanation. The differential arose not from arbitrariness but from the natural progression of the investigation, from an initial estimate based on immediate inputs, to a subsequent refinement on receipt of official pricing data. Unfortunately, this critical aspect was neither brought into focus nor appreciated in the impugned order. 18. Further, it cannot be overlooked that valuation of the seized goods had already been subjected to adjudication in the proceedings initiated under the Customs Act. By order dated 29th August, 2010, passed after issuance of a show cause notice and consideration of the defence raised by Respondent No. 2, the adjudicating authority confirmed the valuation at a figure exceeding INR 1 crore. Although it is correct, as Respondent No. 2 contends, that criminal proceedings and adjudication proceedings operate in distinct spheres and follow different standards of proof, the fact remains that the adjudication proceedings have been concluded, and the valuation specified in the show cause notice has been confirmed, thereby prima facie suggesting th....