Quashed

M/S. Metro Trading Company and Anr. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Bombay HC4 Jul 2012CUAPP/33/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Customs appeals concerning the levy of a 15% predeposit on duty. The High Court held that the Tribunal's basis for ordering predeposit—email correspondence pending final adjudication and a retracted statement—was unsustainable. The order quashing the predeposit requirement was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing predeposit is quashed and set aside; the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeals on merits without insisting any predeposit.

M/S. Metro Trading Company and Anr. Vs the Commissioner of… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO. 9 of 2012

¶4

Tropical Woods Pvt. Ltd & Anr. .. Appellants

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) ..Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO.10 OF 2012

¶9

M/s. Metro Trading Co & Anr. .. Appellants

¶10

v/s.

¶11

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) ..Respondent/s

¶12

Mr.V. Shridharan Sr. Counsel with Mr. Prakash Shah and Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal for the Appellants Mr.Pradeep Jetly for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 4^th JULY , 2012

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to

¶16

PPS 1/3

¶17

¶18

deposit 15% of the duty confirmed by the order in original is the question raised in these two appeals.

¶19

The tribunal in para 17 of its order has recorded that the case of the revenue to the effect that the goods in question have been undervalued and that the thickness of the imported goods has been deliberately withheld from the customs is established from (a) e-mail communication between the foreign supplier and SGS Corporation (another similar importer of identical goods from the same supplier). (b) statement of the Director/partner of the appellants admitting the undervaluation of the goods.

¶20

As regards the e-mail communication between the foreign supplier and SGS Corporation is concerned, admittedly the adjudication in the case of SGS Corporation based on the e-mail communication is still in progress and final decision has not yet been taken by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, evidentiary value of e-mail communication in the case of SGS Corporation itself is yet to be established.

¶21

As regards statement of the Director/partner of the appellants are

¶22

PPS 2/3

¶23

¶24

concerned, it is the case of the appellants that there is no statement admitting undervaluation and in any event the Director/partner of the appellants have retracted the statement. The tribunal has declined to consider the retraction on the ground that the retraction has not been made before the authority who had recorded their statement. From Exhibits (b) and (c) to the appeal memo it is seen that the retraction letter was in fact addressed to the officer who had recorded the statement.

¶25

In these circumstances, the prima facie view of the Tribunal on the basis of which predeposit was ordered cannot be sustained.

¶26

Accordingly, the impugned order of the tribunal dated 20.6.2011 is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting any predeposit.

¶27

Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms with no order as to

¶28

costs.

¶29

PPS 3/3

M/S. Metro Trading Company and Anr. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Metro Trading Company and Anr. v. the Commissioner of Customs (Import)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Customs Excise and Service Tax

Jay Kay Enterprises Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Import)

The Commissioner of Central Excise,Pune-Iii, Vs M/S.Cipla Ltd.

Tropical Woods Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Import)

M/S. Khanapur Taluka Co-Op. Spinning Mills Ltd, Vs the Commissioner Central Excise

M/S. Khanapur Taluka Co-Op. Spinning Mills Ltd, Vs the Commissioner Central Excise