SONIA OVERSEAS (P) LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court disposed of Civil Writ Petition No. 16037 of 2008 by an order dated 22-9-2008 with the direction that the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, shall finalize within a period of two months the parameters to be applied for assessing the value of the imported goods for purposes of payment of customs duty. The assessment of the petitioner was directed to be finalized within one month after the parameters were finalised. Pursuant to the said order, the Commissioner Customs, Nhava Sheva appears to have finalized the parameters/valuation guidelines to be adopted for finalization of assessment in terms of communication No. F. No. S/26-Misc-79/2008 Gr. 1, which were received by the assessing authority in its office on 15-1-2009. The assessing authority then proceeded to make a final assessment order on 7-2-2009 (Annexure P.6, [Colly.]) assessing a duty of Rs. 2,22,478/-; 1,26,855/-; 3,33,435/- and 180,379/- as recoverable from the petitioner on account of the imports made by it. The validity of the said order of assessment has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the while making the said orders, the assessing authority has not either issued any notice to the petitioner or afforded to it any opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2.) When the matter came up before us on 26-2-2009 for hearing, we had directed Shri Ghuman, learned counsel for the respondents to secure the relevant record pertaining to the assessment orders in question and in particular, take instructions whether the same were made after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Shri Sehgal, today appears for the respondents and submits on the instructions of the officers present with him that since the direction issued by this Court granted a limited period of one month to the Assessing Authority to complete the assessment proceedings, the said direction was understood by the Assessing Authority to mean that no further opportunity or hearing was required to be provided to the petitioner-assessee. He fairly conceded that neither any notice of the assessment proceedings was issued nor any opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner at any stage before the making of the assessment order, impugned in this petition. The impugned order is in that view wholly unsustainable no matter the same is otherwise appealable before the prescribed authority. It is fairly well settled that even when an alternative remedy is available against an order, a Writ Court can interfere where the same is made in violation of the principles of natural justice or where the statute on the basis whereof the order is made, is itself under II challenge. The present case falls in the first of the above situations and calls for our intervention in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner had not been heard before the passing of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner has not been provided a copy of the parameters adopted for finalization of the assessment referred to in the impugned order. He urged that a copy of the said parameters ought to be made available to the petitioner in order to make the hearing before the Assessing Authority effective. He further urged that the petitioner's contentions ought to be examined by the Assessing Authority, both on facts and in law.