VINAY AUTO COPIER MACHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXCEPTING W.P.Nos.18435 and 18436 of 2011, the other writ petitions were heard on 05.08.2011 and the matter was directed to be posted for orders on 08.08.2011. On the day when the matters were listed under the caption for orders, W.P.Nos.18435 and 18436 of 2011 came up for admission. Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel agreed that these two matters were also covered by whatever the orders that are to be pronounced in the earlier writ petitions. Hence all the matters were clubbed together and a common order is passed.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions are importers trading in Secondhand Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines and secondhand Photocopier Machines and it accessories, parts and consumables. THEy are also having Code Numbers allotted under the Importer and Exporter Code issued by the respective offices of the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. THEy had also imported from various overseas suppliers in U.S.A., Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden. THE machines were sought to be imported through Chennai Customs. It was stated that the Customs Officers with the assistance of the approved Chartered Engineer were directed to examine the goods. Though applications were submitted long back for the purpose of engaging Chartered Engineers in the prescribed format as directed by the third respondent Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Exports), Customs House, Chennai, no action was initiated. THE officers working under the third respondent prior to the issuance of the impugned order and the consequent note instruction did not permit the clearance of the subject goods in the normal course, but invariably subjected the goods to first check causing 100% examination with the assistance of the locally approved Chartered Engineer under the pretext that the goods are being procured from the dealer and not from the manufacturer. Hence the value declared cannot be accepted. THErefore, they were getting the value enhanced and assessed duty under the specific sub heading No.8443 31 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Such action was resorted to by omitting to respect the ratio given by the Supreme Court as well as the circular No.4/2008, dated 12.2.2008 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.

(3.) IT was stated that only the Central Board of Excise and Customs alone are competent to issue instructions with a view to maintain uniformity in assessment under Section 151-A of the Customs Act. Therefore, the Standing Ordrs and the note instructions issued by the third respondent are without jurisdiction. The direction issued by the third respondent is contrary to various instructions issued by the Ministry providing for the early clearance of goods out of the Port and that it is unreasonable and there was a strong motive. IT is nothing but an harassment. The note instructions issued are unique and unparalleled and has never been made in the history of Customs in any other Ports in India. That the requirement that there should be an approved Chartered Engineer is an irrelevant consideration. The Chartered Engineer is also approved by the Ministry of Commerce and is an expert in the field. Further stipulation that examination of goods should be videographed and photographed in close quarters and the unedited DVD should be provided for the purpose of assessment, adjudication and the audit, exposes the arbitrariness and highhandedness of the third respondent. Such requirements only undermines the trustworthiness and competence of the officers of the Customs. IT is their assertion that examination of goods by the Chartered Engineer has never been called into question.