COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) Vs. LAKHDATAR TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The respondent filed an application for early hearing of the stay petition. The stay petition is listed for hearing today. Therefore, the miscellaneous application is dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. However, the Revenue filed application for staying the operation of Order -in -Appeal No. Kol/Cus/CKP/32/2012, dated 15 -3 -2012, whereby the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the assessment order of the lower authority enhancing the value of betel nut from US $660 per MT. The contention is that Section 17(5) provides for time limit of 15 days for assessment and passing order. The contention is that the assessment order was passed on 10 -3 -2012 whereas the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the Order -in -Appeal dated 15 -3 -2012. The contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have waited for expiry of 15 days time limit provided under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that the NIDB data entry shows value of goods in question to be at least US $1100 per MT instead of lower value US $660 per MT as has been enclosed by M/s. Lakhdatar Traders. The contention is that the enhance of value was made on the basis of Alert Circular No. -CI, dated 18 -1 -2012. As per Alert Circular, it has been circulated that betel nut of Indonesia origin is imported at the rate between US $1400 -1550 per MT.

(2.) THE contention of the ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent is that 15 days time limit prescribed is not the minimum time limit prescribed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 and in their assessment, the value was enhanced without following the procedure prescribed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that subsequently, the bills of entry are being assessed at the value declared by asking them to furnish Indemnity Bond of differential value/differential duty. The ld. Advocate stated that they have furnished the Indemnity Bond of differential value. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that their assessment is made on the provisional basis and the Revenue's interests are safeguarded by furnishing Indemnity Bond by the applicant. The impugned consignment is part of the consignment of 7000 MT. In this case also, they have furnished Indemnity Bond. We have considered the submissions and perused the records. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we do not find any merit in the application filed by the Revenue for staying operation of the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the stay petition filed by the Revenue is dismissed.