High Court Of Calcutta
Ruma Pal, Sujit Kumar Sinha
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ V.SHETH - Respondent
Writ Petition 672 Of 1995
Decided On : 12/20/1996
CUSTOMS - JURISDICTION - DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF EXPORTS - DEEC SCHEME - DUTY EXEMPTION ENTITLEMENT CERTIFICATE - WHETHER CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ENDORSE THE EXPORTS MADE BY AN EXPORTER IN THE DEEC BOOK OF EXPORT PART II AFTER THE EXPORT IS EFFECTED BY THE EXPORTER - SCOPE OF POWERS OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATIONS 203/92 AND 204/92 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 25 (1) OF THE ACT - PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY CONTAINED IN THE HANDBOOK OF PROCEDURES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT INDIA - MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION IN THE CONTEXT OF COLUMN 10 OF PART II-F OF THE NOTIFICATION - DETERMINATION OF VALUE UNDER SECTION 14 (1) OF THE ACT - APPLICATION OF SECTION 14 (1) FOR DETERMINATION OF VALUE UNDER VARIOUS ENACTMENTS - EXPORT CONTROL ORDER, 1988 - FOREIGN TRADE (REGULATION) RULES, 1993 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE (REGULATION) ACT, 1973 - CONSEQUENCES OF OVER-INVOICING OF EXPORTS - OBLIGATION OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES TO QUESTION THE VALUE OF EXPORTS MADE - RE-DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner had exported plastic Flat Jet Nozzles made from HDPE Granules to a purchaser at Singapore. The FOB value of the Nozzles was declared as Rs. 48,46,850/-. The goods were examined by the Appraising Department of the Customs. Samples were drawn by them to verify the value of the Nozzles. The goods were suspected of being over invoiced. Pending enquiry the export was allowed provisionally against a bond. Assessment was made provisionally and an endorsement was made on the Shipping bill to this effect by the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities however refused to endorse the fact of export in Part II of the DEEC book of the writ petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Customs Authorities have the right to refuse to endorse the exports made by an Exporter in the DEEC Book of export Part II after the export is effected by the Exporter. The Customs Authorities are to certify the correctness of the value of the goods under the DEEC Scheme and they cannot be compelled to accept the declared value as correct. For the purposes of ascertaining such correct value the Customs are required to follow the mode prescribed in Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Issues: Whether the Customs Authorities have the right to refuse to endorse the exports made by an Exporter in the DEEC Book of export Part II after the export is effected by the Exporter.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Customs Authorities to assess the value of goods is not limited to cases where the goods are assessable to duty. The Customs Authorities are to certify the correctness of the value of the goods under the DEEC Scheme and they cannot be compelled to accept the declared value as correct. For the purposes of ascertaining such correct value the Customs are required to follow the mode prescribed in Section 14 (1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The order under appeal cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The order of the Commissioner of Customs which was passed during the pendency of the appeal is also set aside as it is not sought to be supported by any of the parties before us. The Commissioner will now re-determine the matter from the point of the issue of the show cause notice.
( 1 ) THE basic issue involved in this appeal is whether the customs authorities have the right to refuse to endorse the exports made by an Exporter in the DEEC Book of export Part II after the export is effected by the Exporter.
( 2 ) THE writ petitioner had exported plastic Flat Jet Nozzles made from HDPE Granules on 7th January, 1994 to a purchaser at Singapore. The FOB value of the Nozzles was declared as Rs. 48,46,850/ -. The goods were examined by the Appraising Department of the Customs. Samples were drawn by them to verify the value of the Nozzles. The goods were suspected of being over invoiced. Pending enquiry the export was allowed provisionally against a bond. Assessment was made provisionally and an endorsement was made on the Shipping bill to this effect by the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities however refused to endorse the fact of export in Part II of the DEEC book of the writ petitioner. Unless the Customs Authorities make such endorsement the writ petitioner cannot apply for transfer of the import licence for import of duty free goods to which the writ petitioner became entitled by reason of such export. It is the petitioner's case that the customs authorities were duty bound to make the endorsement of the export and they had no jurisdiction to question the valuation of the goods.
( 3 ) IN this background of facts the writ application was moved by the writ petitioner on 24th March, 1995 inter alia for a direction on the customs authorities to record and certify the exports effected by the petitioner in the DEEC book of export Part II and to return the same to the petitioner. Interim relief was also prayed for in the same terms. By an order dated 24th March, 1995 the learned Single Judge directed the Customs Authorities to make the endorsement as prayed for by the writ petitioner and to return the DEEC Book after such endorsement to the petitioner within 12 days. Within the same period the respondents were also directed to extend the validity period of the writ petitioner's licence by a period of six months. The learned Judge was of the view that if the goods were not worthless the valuation of the petitioner must be accepted for the time being especially because the entire foreign exchange had already been received in India. It was also noted that the validity period of the writ petitioner's licence expired on 13th February, 1995; that the export had been completed long before and the foreign buyers had made their remittance long before and that the period of licence had been allowed to expire without serving a show cause notice and also without making of any endorsement. It was recorded in the order that a show cause notice dated 20th February, 1995 had been served on the petitioner. The parties were given the liberty to proceed with the same. It was clarified that the order passed on the writ application would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The writ application is still pending.
( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by this order the Customs Authorities and the Union of India preferred this appeal on 6th April, 1995. The Appeal Court admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the interim order dated 24th March, 1995. In the course of hearing of the appeal it appeared that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice. This Court accordingly directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the customs authorities without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the appeal. The customs authorities were also directed to dispose of the matter within a specified period with a reasoned order. Pursuant to such direction the respondent writ petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Customs granted a personal hearing. On 19th April, 1996 an order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs holding that the FOB value of the export consignment covered by the shipping bill should be Rs. 92,000/- against the declared value of R
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.