Back
1991 Supreme(Cal) 174
High Court Of Calcutta
Ruma Pal, J.
Atmaram Agarwalla : Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Customs : Respondent
Decided On : March 28,1991
The Customs Authorities are justified in refusing to release the said goods on the ground that the prices mentioned in the invoice was lower than the prevailing market price.
Headnote:
CUSTOMS VALUATION - IMPORTED GOODS - TRANSACTION VALUE - DETERMINATION - RULE 5 - APPLICATION - JUSTIFICATION - ASSESSMENT ORDER - INTERFERENCE - NOT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner imported Polystyrene Resin General Purposes Lucky 15-NF (hereinafter referred to as - the said goods) from Hongkong. The Customs Authorities refused to release the said goods on the ground that the prices mentioned in the invoice was lower than the prevailing market price. The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the refusal of the Customs Authorities to accept the invoice value and also the refusal of the Customs Authorities to assess or release the goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Customs Authorities had justified the assessment order by referring to the computer print outs which contain brief descriptions of the nature of the goods and the value of the same. The court also found that the petitioner had not been able to show any other instances of identical goods such as the petitioners being imported and released by the customs at the invoices value.
Issues: Whether the Customs Authorities were justified in refusing to release the said goods on the ground that the prices mentioned in the invoice was lower than the prevailing market price.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in this background and in this state of the facts interference with the assessment order under Article 226 is not justified. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal from the assessment order.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal from the assessment order. The petitioner was also given liberty to clear the said goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire amount covering the difference between the admitted Customs duty and the Customs duty as assessed by the respondents.
Ruma Pal, J.
1. THE petitioner has imported Polystyrene Resin General Purposes Lucky 15-NF (hereinafter referred to as - the said goods). The goods were imported pursuant to an order placed by the petitioner with a concern of Hongkong. The prices at which the said goods were purchased by the petitioner is claimed to be $ 1120 per MT. The goods were manufactured by Lucky Goldstar International Corporation, Seoul, Korea. The goods arrived in Calcutta on 16/17th February, 1991. On 15-2-1991 a bill of entry was filed in respect of the said goods. The bill of entry mentioned the said goods as Polystyrene Resin General Purposes Lucky 15-NF. The value of the said goods was stated as CIF $ 1120 per MT.
2. THE Customs Authorities, however refused to release the said goods on the ground that the prices mentioned in the invoice was lower than the prevailing market price. The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the refusal of the Customs Authorities to accept the invoice value and also the refusal of the Customs Authorities to assess or release the goods. The said application was moved on 11-3-1991. An interim order was passed on 18-3-1991 to the effect inter alia that the Customs Authorities should assess the goods and pass an assessment order after hearing the petitioner.
An assessment order has been passed by the Customs Authorities in which the value of the said goods has been stated to be $ 1400 MT.
3. THE Customs Authorities have justified the assessment order by referring to the computer print outs which contain brief descriptions of the nature of the goods and the value of the same.
4. THE computer print out relating to the Bombay Customs House contains references to General Purpose Polystyrene, Gr. 15 N.F. The computer print out for Madras relates to Lucky's G.P.P.S. 15 N.F. Polystyrene. A distinction therefore seems to exist between General Purpose Polystyrene Gr. 15 N.F. and Lucky's G.P. Polystyrene 15 N.F. The rates specified in connection with Lucky's G.P.P.S. 15 NF. Polystyrene and the invoice dates in respect thereof are as follows:
On the other hand the petitioners have produced Customs Print outs relating to Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The entries in the print outs relating to Bombay are in connection with General Purpose Polystyrene resin of divers grades, including General Purpose Polystyrene 15 N.F. The Customs printout in connection with Calcutta relates to High Impact Polystyrene and General Purpose Polystyrene Gr. 2 G.33. The print out in respect of Madras Customs House relates to High Impact Polystyrene, Polystyrene Resin, Polystyrene Film and the same two instances of Lucky's G.P.P.S. 15 N.F. Polystyrene relied upon by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, if there is a difference between Lucky's G.P.P.S. 15 N.F. Polystyrene and other General Purpose Polystyrene Resins 15 N.F. except for the two instances which are common with the Customs print out, the petitioner has not been able to show any other instances of identical goods such as the petitioners being imported and released by the customs at the invoices value. However, this court is not in a position to determine at this stage whether there is a distinction in fact between Lucky's G.P.P.S. 15 N.F. Polystyrene and General Purpose Polystyrene Gr. 15 N.F.
5. THE petitioners have also produced an invoice dated 30-10-1990 of Lucky Goldstar International Corporation in favour of M/s. Plastic Concern for General Purpose Polystyrene Grade 15-NF in which the price was $ 1120. It is not stated whether this was a direct sale or sale through a third party as in this case. A copy of the bill of entry relating to the said consignment of M/s. Plastic Concern has also been produced before this Court. It appears from the bill of entry that the invoice value of the goods in question was accepted for the purpose of assessment and release. The petitioner has also produced copies of the manufacturers invoices in favour of Dilip Plastics, Dipak Plastics Industrie
