Writ Petition No. 4922 of 2015. Case: Fairy Footwear Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 4922 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Sujay Kantawala and Brijesh Pathak, Advs. and For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108 |
| Citation | 2015 (323) ELT 469 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | August 03, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
We have heard Mr. Kantawala, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition who challenges the order passed by the Settlement Commission on the settlement application preferred by the petitioner-applicant.
-
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Settlement Commission was adjudicating the application filed on 7th May, 2014. The final hearing of this application concluded on 8th January, 2015. After the conclusion of such final hearing, the Settlement Commission, and prior to passing of the impugned order dated 18th February, 2015, took on record the submissions from the Revenue in regard to the worksheet. The Commission has heavily relied on this worksheet and comments of the Revenue on the same. The worksheet was not specifically rejected by the department and the comments of the revenue thereon after having been noted, the Commission proceeded and held that though the worksheet is supplied the actual value of the past consignments have been stated and reflected therein only from the memory of the applicant-petitioner and it is not supported by any documentary evidence. The undervaluation in respect of the seized consignments where actual invoices are available is more than six times of the declared value. Thus, Mr. Kantawala submitted that this is not a Report but a written note or submission and to enable the Commission to pass the final order coupled with the comments on the worksheet which have been entertained and after the conclusion of hearing. This records a specific stand of the revenue. Further, the Revenue contends that the valuation done by it, is not very high in comparison with the value available for similarly seized goods. In that regard our attention is invited to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the show cause notice and it is urged that the Revenue could not obtain any material so as to determine the value for similarly seized goods. Thus, it does not have any material for comparative analysis. Mr. Kantawala submits that if the petitioner was cooperating and the Settlement Commission was inclined to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, then, interest of justice and fairness required that the Commission to give an opportunity to the petitioner to offer his comments on the notes submitted by the Revenue. There was no need to foist a liability towards differential customs duties and penalty based on such note.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that...
To continue reading
Request your trial