Page 26 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

xxiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Unjust enrichment bar not applicable on refund of excess duty paid on
machinery imported for turnkey project - See under REFUND/REFUND
CLAIM ........................................ 194
VALUATION (CUSTOMS) :
— Export of leather jackets - Overvaluation in order to higher amount of
drawback - Solely on the basis of sample test report of Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research - Central Leather Research Institute
(CSIR - CLRI) indicating in its second report the lower cost break up
pursuant to suggestion made by DRI’s communication letter sent to it,
rejection of declared value not justified particularly when said institute
not an authorized agency to determine price of export goods - Further,
valuation of export goods has to be done in terms of Customs Valuation
(Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 by sequential
application of Rules thereof - Order of adjudicating authority directly
applying Rules 5(a) and 5(c) ibid without first ruling out possibility of
applicability of Rules 3 and 4 ibid not sustainable particularly when no
market enquiry conducted in respect of the export consignment - Section
14 of Customs Act, 1962 — RBT Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port),
Kolkata (Tri. - Kolkata) .................................. 257
— Import value - Hot-rolled steel plates (non-alloy) - Enhancement of value
on basis of contemporary imports of similar goods from same supplier by
public sector unit, Mazgaon Dock Ltd. - HELD : Rigidity of contract
entered by public sector unit, lacks comparability with flexibility in
renegotiation of contract of assessee when price of steel claimed to have
declined sharply - Also Mazgaon Dock Ltd. imported ‘prime goods’
whereas as per assesee’s contract goods imported were ‘ex-stock’ and in
much higher quantity of goods - Circumstances in which Mazgaon Dock
Ltd. entered into contract with supplier and scope for flexibility arising
from declining of price of steel may have impacted contract entered into
by assessee almost year later, not considered - Mere reference to financial
mandate of contract, or enumeration of contemporaneous prices, does
not excuse assessing officer from obligation to ascertain acceptability of
claim of reduction in steel price being discernible even within a period of
contemporaneous imports - Imports by Mazgaon Dock Ltd. not to be
designated as ‘similar’ merely because of being contemporaneous - Also,
no efforts made by assessing officer to ascertain manner in which alleged
undervaluation compensated to such extent as to warrant adoption of
value almost double that of declared value - Such excess undervaluation,
as alleged, ought to have been subject to serious investigation and
appropriate penalties imposed - Exercise of enhancement of value so
undertaken without sufficient evidence on hand - Impugned order set
aside - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 — Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr.
of Cus. (Import), Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ......................... 279
Writ jurisdiction - Methodology of Adjudication - No interference under
writ jurisdiction is called for in such cases as adjudicating authority is
expected to follow laws as well as judicial precedents - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Narendra Kumar Jain v. Dinesh Meena, Joint Commr., Cus.
(Preventive) (Del.) .................................... 247
Writ proceedings for challenging methodology of adjudication proceedings
when not sustainable - See under ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS ..... 247
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  42