Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commr. of Cus. (import) Vs. Uni Pharma India

Commr. of Cus. (import) vs Uni Pharma India

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 10, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20347

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of Cus. (import)

Respondent

Uni Pharma India

Legal References

Reported In
(2001)(129)ELT271Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....the value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of quotation only and the commissioner (appeals) has discussed the matter fully and then only set aside the adjudication order.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the commissioner (appeals) was of the view that principles of natural justice has not been followed as the order was passed ex parte and the report received from directorate of valuation was not given to the respondents which prevented the importers from filing a suitable reply. we also observe that he has set aside the order by simply observing that enhancement of value is arbitrary and unjustified without assigning any reason. the impugned order is, therefore, a non speaking order. in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the appellate authority to consider all the pleas which may be advanced by the importers and to pass a well reasoned order under the law. the documents relied upon by the department for enhancing the value of the dry ginger also be given to the importers and sufficient time should be given to them for filing the reply.5. the appeal as well as the stay petition are disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. Today only stay application was listed for hearing. However, considering the issue involved, we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides.

2. Mrs. Reena Arya, ld. SDR mentions that the Respondent M/s. Uni Pharma India had imported Dry Ginger of China Origin and declared the price at the rate of US$ 800 PMT; that the Asstt. Commissioner relying on certain quotations and Bill of Entry No. 463, dated 2-6-1999 had enhanced the value to US$ 1200 PMT; that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has just set aside the Adjudication order without giving any reasons and it is being non speaking order she prays for the matter to be remanded to the Appellate Authority.

3. Countering the prayer, the ld. Advocate Shri Kumar submits that the value of the imported goods cannot be enhanced on the basis of quotation only and the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the matter fully and then only set aside the Adjudication order.

4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that principles of natural justice has not been followed as the order was passed ex parte and the report received from Directorate of Valuation was not given to the Respondents which prevented the importers from filing a suitable reply. We also observe that he has set aside the order by simply observing that enhancement of value is arbitrary and unjustified without assigning any reason. The impugned order is, therefore, a non speaking order. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the Appellate Authority to consider all the pleas which may be advanced by the importers and to pass a well reasoned order under the law. The documents relied upon by the Department for enhancing the value of the Dry Ginger also be given to the importers and sufficient time should be given to them for filing the reply.

5. The appeal as well as the stay petition are disposed of in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial