Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that charging of 1% of EDD by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 despite the SVB order dated 23th June 2014 being brought to the notice of Respondent No.3 along with the conditions of the Circular No.11/2001- Cus dated 23rd February 2001 that 1% EDD cannot be recovered once the decision is given by the Special Valuation Branch ("SVB"), or where no SVB order is passed there on the expiration of four months from the date of filing of the reply to the questionnaire, is arbitrary and contrary to the said circular as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd v/s Union of India reported in 2010 (255) ELT 63 (Bom). He therefore submitted that this was a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    S. NO.   Order No. and date                         When applicable
    1        Order in Original No. 96/99/Group/Cr.SVB Till 10.02.2002
       



             dated 11.02.1999
    2        Order No.1442/2004 dated 10.02.2004        From     11.02.2002          to
                                                        09.02.2007





    3        Order No. SVB/ Cus/ Review/1/Pu/2007 dated From     10.02.2007          to
             10.04.2007                                 09.04.2010
    4        OrderNo.SVB/CUS/        Review/HS/19/2010 From      10.04.2010 till
             dated 25.11.2010(Set aside by the Hon'ble 24.11.2013(subject    to
             High Delhi Court                          modification by superior
                                                       authorities)





    5        Order       No.SVB/CUS/Review/HS/24/2010 From     21.02.2011           till
             dated 21.02.2011                         20.02.2014
    6        Order of this Hon'ble High Court in WP Directions to Respondent 5
             No.2911 dated 28.03.2014               to pass an appropriate
                                                    order after considering
                                                    submissions       of    the
                                                    Petitioner within 3 months.




                                                             WP6364 OF 2014

    7          Order    No.SVB/CUS/REVIEW/SS/07/19422 Directions to Respondent 5

dated 23.06.2014 passed by Respondent 5 in to pass an appropriate compliance with this Hon'ble Court directions order after considering submissions of the Petitioner within 3 months.

4. The said SVB orders clearly contemplated that every order shall be in force for three years from the date of its passing unless the facts undergo any change. The orders also mention that any person aggrieved (which would include Revenue) with the SVB order may file an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. Thus, till 9 th April 2010, the SVB order dated 10th April 2007, set out above, was in force and for the sub-

WP6364 OF 2014

12. Mr. Raichandani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the action on the part of Respondent No.4 in loading the imports with 1% EDD is ex-facie erroneous, illegal and perverse. He submitted that the said 1% EDD could not be loaded on the imports, despite a valid SVB order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SVB, New Delhi and the action on the part of the Respondents in this regard was high-handed and arbitrary. The learned counsel submitted that despite the said SVB order, the Respondents were assessing the bills of entry subject to the loading of 1% EDD in view of the fact that the Appeal from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31st October 2011 was pending before the CESTAT, New Delhi. He submitted that despite the Petitioner having succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeals) and there being no stay granted by the CESTAT, New Delhi, the Respondents continued to load the imports of the Petitioner with 1% EDD. According to Mr. Raichandani, this action of the Respondents was totally arbitrary and contrary to the law. In the alternative, he submitted that the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board, New Delhi had issued a circular 23 rd February, 2001 that specifically directed that even if the decision is pending by the SVB cell, then, beyond a period of four months, EDD could not be WP6364 OF 2014 recovered. In this regard, he placed reliance on clause (9) of the Circular dated 23rd February 2001, which reads as under:-