Full Judgment
WP No.775 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EXCEL IMPORT PVT.LTD.Versus UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 22nd August, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.R.K.Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.S.B.Saraf, Advocate Md.T.M.Siddiqui, Advocate The Court: This is the second writ application.
The fiRs.writ application (WP No.190 of 2014) was disposed of on 21st March, 2014 by Harish Tandon, J., directing the Customs assessment of the duty” within Authorities to take “steps for final three weeks from the date of communication of the order, complying with the rules of natural justice.
The goods had been released on provisional assessment, awaiting final assessment.
The final assessment has not been completed.
Hence this second writ.
By their letter dated 8th April, 2014 the Customs Department asked the writ petitioner to produce the following documents :“1) Documentary evidences of selling price of identical/similar goods in India, imported earlier;
2) Manufacturer’s test certificates about nature and material composition of the goods imported;
3) Manufacturer’s certification/cost-sheet of the production cost of the goods imported;
4) Manufacturer/supplier’s certification/declaration about post manufacture expenditures on the product, e.g.local taxes leviable on the goods meant for export, margins of profit, F.O.B.charges including sea-worthy packing and transportation of the goods for shipment, seafreight, insurance, supplier’s margin of profit, etc.;
5) Any other documents deemed fit by you to justify the declared value of the goods imported.” This was followed by an identical letter dated 27th April, 2014.
On 16th May, 2014, the writ petitioner replied to this letter.
Some documents were furnished.
With regard to the others they expressed their regret.
Mr.Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that in the absence of the documents which the Customs Department wanted and the writ petitioner could not provide, the assessment has been held up by them.
Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 relates to assessment.
It enacts that an importer could self-assess the duty, if any leviable on such goods.
The proper officer of Customs has the power to verify this self-assessment by whatever means he deems fit and proper, which include examining and testing the goods.
The proper officer also has the option of calling upon the importer to produce the contract note, broker’s note, insurance policy, catalogue and any other document to enable him to properly value the goods.
The importer is also duty bound to furnish whatever information he has.
See section 17[2].and [3].of the Customs Act, 1962.
If upon collection of this evidence the officer thinks that the self-assessment has not been done properly, he may re-assess the goods.
The Customs Valuation [Determination of Value of Imported Goods].Rules, 2007 supplement these provisions of the Customs Act.
If the goods cannot be valued by the transaction value method there are provisions for its valuation under the said rules for valuation by other methods.
Therefore, the proper officer is to assess the goods accordingly.
The ordinary law would also apply.
If documents and information are in the possession and power of a party, who does not produce them, despite a request for production, an adveRs.inference may be drawn against such a party.
But there is no justification for holding up compliance with the order dated 21st March, 2014 of his lordship.
In those circumstances, I dispose of this writ application by directing the respondent no.3 to immediately comply with the said order, keeping in view the observations made above by 29th September, 2014.
Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I.
G/Pkd.
A.R.[C.R.].P.MUKERJI, J.)