Shri Brijmohan Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this misc. application shri brijmohan bhatia, proprietor of m/s.b.i.c. international, delhi has requested the tribunal to direct the commissioner of customs, bombay to release the goods lying in the customs as per the tribunal's final order no. 839/2000-a dated 10.10.2000. shri r.k. handoo, learned advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported cfl energy saver lamps from g & v.international, hongkong and filed the bill of entry no. 4136 dated 10.2.99 for clearance of goods; that the customs authorities loaded the value to rs.13,28,040/- as against the declared value of rs.4,34,643/-: that the tribunal under the final order no. 839/2000-a held that the adjudicating authority has not substantiated the case that the value shown in the invoice, namely the transaction value cannot be accepted as the correct value. the learned advocate further submitted that the tribunal had set aside the impugned order and had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority containing the direction that the goods can be got examined by experts if the department feels that these were undervalued and directed the matter to be adjudicated as expediously as possible as the goods were lying in detention for nearly 2 years. the learned advocate emphasised that the tribunal had fixed a period of two months from the date of receipt of order in absence of which the goods lying with the department has to be released after levying duty on the transaction value. he submitted that the commissioner instead of releasing the goods had sent notice for personal hearing though there is no new material brought forth by him on record; that the personal hearing is only elongating the misery of the applicant.2. shri p.k. jain, learned sdr, on the other hand mentioned that the applicant refused to appear before the commissioner when the personal hearing was fixed: that the personal hearing was fixed before the expiry of 2 months from the date of receipt of tribunal's final order in the matter; that if the applicant had cooperated with the department the matter would have been readjudicated.3. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. it is apparent from the tribunal's final order in question that the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for denovo decision in pursuance of which the adjudicating authority fixed personal hearing. it was required by the applicant to appear for the personal hearing and plead his case before the adjudicating authority. in the interest of justice, we direct the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on denovo immediately without any further delay. the learned sdr will report to the tribunal regarding the order passed by the commissioner on 30.4.2001. the misc. application filed by the applicant is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
1. In this Misc. application Shri Brijmohan Bhatia, Proprietor of M/s.

B.I.C. International, Delhi has requested the Tribunal to direct the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay to release the goods lying in the Customs as per the Tribunal's Final Order No. 839/2000-A dated 10.10.2000. Shri R.K. Handoo, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants had imported CFL Energy Saver Lamps from G & V.International, Hongkong and filed the Bill of Entry No. 4136 dated 10.2.99 for clearance of goods; that the Customs authorities loaded the value to Rs.13,28,040/- as against the declared value of Rs.4,34,643/-: that the Tribunal under the Final Order No. 839/2000-A held that the Adjudicating authority has not substantiated the case that the value shown in the invoice, namely the transaction value cannot be accepted as the correct value. The learned Advocate further submitted that the Tribunal had set aside the impugned Order and had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority containing the direction that the goods can be got examined by experts if the Department feels that these were undervalued and directed the matter to be adjudicated as expediously as possible as the goods were lying in detention for nearly 2 years. The learned Advocate emphasised that the Tribunal had fixed a period of two months from the date of receipt of Order in absence of which the goods lying with the department has to be released after levying duty on the transaction value. He submitted that the Commissioner instead of releasing the goods had sent notice for personal hearing though there is no new material brought forth by him on record; that the personal hearing is only elongating the misery of the applicant.

2. Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR, on the other hand mentioned that the applicant refused to appear before the Commissioner when the personal hearing was fixed: that the personal hearing was fixed before the expiry of 2 months from the date of receipt of Tribunal's Final Order in the matter; that if the applicant had cooperated with the department the matter would have been readjudicated.

3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is apparent from the Tribunal's Final Order in question that the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating authority for denovo decision in pursuance of which the Adjudicating authority fixed personal hearing. It was required by the applicant to appear for the personal hearing and plead his case before the Adjudicating authority. In the interest of justice, we direct the Adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on denovo immediately without any further delay. The learned SDR will report to the Tribunal regarding the Order passed by the Commissioner on 30.4.2001. The Misc. application filed by the Applicant is disposed of accordingly.