IRCON INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order, Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has levied certain amounts of duties in respect of 2 consignments cleared earlier and in respect of 2 consignments which was still under clearance. First point raised by the Ld. C.A. Shri D.B. Desai for the appellants is that, the appellants have not been issued any show cause notice for recovery of duty in respect of the 3 clearances effected earlier by the appellants under Section 28 which is a mandatory provisions. First requirement is issue of show cause notice and then only a recovery of duty not levied/short -levied etc. could be made.

(2.) AS for the current assessment of 2 Bills of Entry, Ld. C.A. submitted that even where the valuation of imported goods declared in the Bills of Entry by the appellants, was not acceptable to the Customs Authorities, higher valuation could be affected by the adjudicating authority only after giving a show cause notice in view of the requirements to the principles of natural justice not been done, both for the 3 Bills of Entry clearances of which were affected earlier and for 2 consignments currently under assessment, there has been a violation of principles of natural justice according to the Ld. CA. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order suffers from this basic flaw.

(3.) OPPOSING the contention, Ld. Consultant Shri K.M. Mondal submits that by a letter dated 25.4.97 referring to the Bills of Entry under current assessment, certain information was asked for by the Assistant Commissioner, Appraising Group, 5A of the Customs House. Certain information was given by appellants vide their letter dated 30th April, 1997. Information was further submitted by a letter dated 12.5.97 and a further information was given by a letter dated 16.5.97. It appears by reading of the impugned order that the said information given by the 3 letters from the appellants has not been considered sufficient by the adjudicating authority. He has come to the conclusion that certain material has still been suppressed by the appellants vis -a -vis valuation. Therefore, valuation of the imported goods both for the past clearances and for the current consignments has been increased by the adjudicating authority and a higher level of duty has been imposed on the appellants.