Page 26 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

xxiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Valuation (Customs) (Contd.)
— Revaluation - Misdeclaration based on presumed relationship between
exporter and importer indicated in investigation report - It is not
sufficient for revaluation, especially where relationship has not been
tested on Rule 2(2) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - In such case, revenue cannot invoke
Sections 111(m), 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v.
Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ................ 849
Value adopted for redemption of confiscated goods is not relevant for
imposing penalty - See under PENALTY ..................... 849
Vessels drawings, valuation thereof - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ... 849
Writ jurisdiction - Aggrieved party against Settlement order - DRI having
seized goods and issued show cause notice which is yet to be
adjudicated, is an aggrieved party against order of Settlement
Commission - Writ jurisdiction invocable - Article 226 of Constitution of
India — Principal Additional Director General, DRI v. Customs, Central Excise and Service
Tax Settlement Commission (Del.) ............................. 840
— Territorial jurisdiction - Notwithstanding that goods were imported in
allocation under Punjab & Haryana High Court, since Settlement order
under challenge has been passed by quasi-judicial authority’s Delhi
Principal Bench, Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain
writ petition - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Principal Additional
Director General, DRI v. Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission
(Del.) ......................................... 840

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  26