Page 26 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

xxiv EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
Valuation (Customs) (Contd.)
- Rules 3(b) and 10(1)(e) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of
Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 — Indo Rubber and Plastic Works v. Commissioner of
Customs, New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .............................. 250
— Rejection of declared value and reduction of drawback claim - Finding of
Commissioner based on market inquiries - Market inquiries by itself
could not be held as sufficient to reject value of exported goods -
Assessee placed on record BRC’s indicating and evidencing total
realization of exported goods - Value of goods cannot be doubted and
declared value to be accepted - Drawback claim to be calculated at
declared value - Sections 14 and 28 of Customs Act, 1962 — Kaka Carpets v.
Commr. of C. Ex. (Adjudication), New Delhi (Tri. - All.) ................... 286
Vessel itself declared as a cargo, Wharfage charges leviable - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 196
Warehoused goods, limitation for refund of interest - See under INTEREST ... 223
Warehousing period of warehoused goods, determination of - See under
INTEREST ...................................... 223
Wharfage charges leviable on Vessel declared as Cargo - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 196
Wilful misstatement absent, extended period of limitation not invocable -
See under DEMAND ................................ 193
Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of - Against show cause notice - Adjudication of
confiscation proceedings going on - High Court not to interfere at the
stage of adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of
Customs Act, 1962 - However, goods directed to be released subject to
deposit by writ applicant of an amount of ` 4,20,000 towards tax and
penalty with the authority concerned and also furnish a bank guarantee
to the tune of ` 22,00,000 of any Nationalized bank - Adjudication
proceedings shall be completed on its own merits - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Hari Om Company v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) .......... 190
— Exercise of - Question of law has to be tried on exchange of affidavits - It
is not sufficient to pass interim order without reasons after narration of
submissions - Article 226 of Constitution of India — Rujira Naroola v. Union of
India (Cal.) ....................................... 145
Wrong export documents generated due to defect in inventory software,
confiscation and penalty not sustainable - See under CONFISCATION
AND PENALTY ................................... 286

______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  26