SAI EXPORT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With consent on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner is an importer of various textile fabrics from China and other countries and in the course of business activities, they had imported a consignment of 100% Knitted Polyester Fabric of specification (220-240 GSM) 75 X 100 Denier from China. The petitioner imported quantity at the unit price of US$ 2, by Invoice dated 28-3-2017, the total invoice value is US$ 300.20. Based on this, the petitioner has filed Bill of Entry No. 9317183, dated 16-4-2017 before the third respondent. The third respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish bond and Bank guarantee for provisional assessment of the subject goods. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no justification on the part of the respondents to mechanically insist for furnishing bond and Bank guarantee for provisional assessment of the subject goods. This conclusion is supported by the following reasons. Earlier, the petitioner had effected three imports during the year 201 The respondents did not accept the declared value and enhanced the value to unit price of US$ 4.82. The petitioner cleared the goods based on the enhanced value. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original No. 21613/2013, dated 28-2-2013 was passed, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). This appeal was rejected by order dated 24-3-2014, stating that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim. As against the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal in C/40939/2014 before the CESTAT and the appeal is pending. In the year 2014, the petitioner imported similar goods under five Bills of Entry, which were all allowed clearance after endorsement of value by Order-in-Original dated 31-1-2014. This was contested before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by order dated 1-5-2014. Thus, the petitioner was able to establish that the price declared by them was the correct price of the imported goods. Aggrieved by such order, the Revenue has preferred appeal before the CESTAT and an application for stay was moved by the Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 11-2-2015. The Revenue has not preferred any further appeal against the rejection of the stay petition. The appeal filed by the Revenue is still pending. Thus, as on date, the value declared by the petitioner in respect of identical goods has been accepted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the order dated 1-5-2014 and such order has not been stayed by the CESTAT. Mere pendency of an appeal before the Appellate forum will not amount to stay of the order passed by the lower forum/authority. In the instant case, the valuation of the identical goods passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is binding on the third respondent.