SONIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us challenging order dated 16.7.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CFS, Focal Point, Ludhiana (respondent No.3) primarily on a plea that the order has been passed in gross and blatant violation of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (for short, the Rules).

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have based their conclusions upon a formula/norms devised by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva which, in essence, denudes discretion conferred upon an Assessing Officer. The formula/norm came up for consideration in CWP No.9152 of 2010 M/s Ganesh Agro Versus Union of India and others decided on 1.12.2010 and it was held that these norms cannot be applied mechanically without considering the genuineness of the transaction value or value calculated as per the statute. The respondents have applied these norms without considering genuineness of the transaction value or recording any finding that the transaction value is incorrect.

(3.) Counsel for the revenue submits, on the basis of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., 2012 278 ELT 26 that the Act is a complete code in itself and prescribes a procedure for appeals. The writ petition filed without exhausting remedies of appeal should be dismissed. It is further submitted that the question whether the consignment was in accordance with the description assigned in the bill of entry, has been decided after considering provisions of the Act and the Rules. The norms are merely guidelines issued to officers who may or may not consider them and may depending upon circumstances of a case, take guidance from the norms. It is further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order reveals that norms have not been applied mechanically or by ignoring genuineness of transaction value of goods. It is further submitted that after notices were issued the petitioner, did not bother to put in appearance and, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise a grievance against the impugned order without filing an appeal.