Calcutta High Court
The Commissioner Of Customs ... vs M/S. Supari Trading Corporation on 17 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 CAL 821
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji, Md. Nizamuddin
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Customs)
ORIGINAL SIDE
CUSTA 14 of 2018
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SUPARI TRADING CORPORATION
CUSTA 15 of 2018
2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SHEROWALI VANIJAY PVT. LTD.
CUSTA 16 of 2018
3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S BHAWANI METAL CORPORATION
CUSTA 17 of 2018
4. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S ANGEL INTERNATIONAL
CUSTA 18 of 2018
5. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SHARDHA TRADERS
CUSTA 19 of 2018
6. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SUKANYA TRADERS
CUSTA 21 of 2018
7. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. G.E. CORPORATION
CUSTA 22 of 2018
8. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S OPEL TRADE CORPORATION
CUSTA 37 of 2018
9. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
MAHENDRA MODI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BAJRANG EXPO.
CUSTA 39 of 2018
10. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
MAHENDRA MODI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BAJRANG EXPO.
CUSTA 42 of 2018
11. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
SOUMEN DAS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BABA TRADERS
2
CUSTA 46 of 2018
12. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. BABA TRADERS
CUSTA 47 OF 2018
13. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. BABA TRADERS
CUSTA 50 OF 2018
14. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. GOLD INTERNATIONAL
CUSTA 52 OF 2018
15. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SANDEEP INTERNATIONAL
CUSTA 53 OF 2018
16. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. GOLD INTERNATIONAL
CUSTA 54 OF 2018
17. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. R. G. OVERSEAS
CUSTA 55 OF 2018
18. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SANDEEP INTERNATIONAL
CUSTA 57 OF 2018
19. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA
Versus
M/S. SWETA TRADING
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN
Date : 17th April, 2019.
Appearance:
Mr. K. K. Maity, Adv.
Ms. Sanjukta Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. N. K. Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury, Adv.
3
The Court: The above first twelve matters from the top are treated as on the
day's list. The other matters are in the list.
All the above matters are being disposed of by this common judgment and
order inasmuch as similar questions of fact and law are involved.
Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondents at the outset
takes the point that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeals as the question of valuation of goods is involved.
We think he is absolutely correct. Our reasons are as follows:-
By notification no. 12 (RE- 2013)/2009-2014 dated 13th May, 2013 made by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with the then foreign trade policy chapter 8 of ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule 1 the import policy was amended. By this amendment the importation of erca nuts whether whole, split or otherwise was made free provided the CIF value was Rs. 110/- or more per kilogram.
Mr. Maity, learned counsel for the appellants is absolutely correct when he says that if the valuation of the subject goods was below Rs.110/-, the goods were liable to confiscation subject to redemption on terms and conditions mentioned in the Customs Act, 1962. In this case the importer has imported these nuts at a value much less than Rs.110/-.
On an interpretation of the notification, the appellant authorities thought that the importer was bound to import goods valued at atleast Rs.110/-.
The goods were released provisionally.
A show cause notice was issued by the appellant. Confiscation proceedings were started. The Tribunal in its impugned order dated 28th November, 2017 held that the value below Rs. 110/- declared by the importer did not make the goods prohibited. Each importer was allowed to obtain the release of the goods by payment of duty, redemption, fine and penalty. The tribunal noted that the duty had been paid as per the tariff value. It is admitted by learned Counsel for the parties that the use of the expression 'Tariff Value' was erroneous by the tribunal. The duty was paid according to the transaction value. 4
Hence the question which is proposed for the revenue by Mr. Maity is whether the importer was liable to pay the difference between Rs.110/- and the duty paid.
In other words, whether the imported goods can only be allowed to be imported duty free if the CIF value is declared to be Rs.110/- or more or can be imported irrespective of the value declared by the importer both subject to assessment and payment of duty.
In our opinion, this is clearly a valuation dispute between the parties. This Court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
However, we feel that the appellants have proceeded bonafide in a Court not having jurisdiction which may be taken into account for the purpose of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
We make it clear that this order will not prevent the appellants from moving any other forum for redressal of their grievance.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) cs.