{"id":203130,"date":"2006-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006"},"modified":"2015-04-30T12:13:14","modified_gmt":"2015-04-30T06:43:14","slug":"pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 31\/07\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN           \n\nW.P.No.23282 of 2006  \n and\n M.P.No.1 of 2006 \n\nPushpanjali\nSilk Private Limited\nrepresented by its Director,\nSanjiv Kumar Jhunjhunwala               ...  Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Chief\nCommissioner of Customs,  \nCustom House, No.60, Rajaji \nsalai, Chennai  1.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Customs  \n(Port-Imports),\nNo.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n\n3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs  \n(GR. 3 and 4),\nCustom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,\nChennai-1.                              ...  Respondents.\n\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of  India\nto  issue  a  Writ  of  Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the\nthird respondent culminating in show cause notice No.SCN\/GR3&4\/529\/20 06 dated   \n07.07.2006 and quash the same  and  direct  the  respondents  to  release  all\nconsignments   of   Mulberry   Raw   Silk   imported   under   Sales  Contract\nNo.IE\/PSR-RS03\/2005, dated 17.02.2005, in terms of the final order No.174\/2006\ndated 20.03.2006 of the Customs, Excise and Service  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,\nupheld by the Honourable Supreme Court on 10.07.2006.  \n\n\n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.  Habibullah Basha,\n                        Senior Counsel\n                        for Ms.L.Maithili\n\n^For Respondents        :  Mr.  V.T.Gopalan, Additional Solicitor\n                        General, assisted by\n                        Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam,  SCGSC\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
                By  consent,  the  main  writ  petition itself is taken up for
\nfinal disposal.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The petitioner is  aggrieved  by  the  third  respondent’s
\nrefusal  to  accept  the  declared  value of the goods and the subsequent show
\ncause notice, when the earlier identical show cause notice issued  in  respect
\nof  goods  under  the same contract has been set aside in appeal accepting the
\ndeclared value.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The petitioner is a major importer of various varieties of
\nraw silk through Chennai Port and has been importing huge quantities  of  silk
\nfrom M\/s.   International Enterprises, Hongkong.  The above purchases are made
\nin terms of formal contracts entered into between the parties, wherein details
\nsuch as total  quantity  of  import,  time  limit  for  supply  of  contracted
\nquantity, price, etc., are specifically stipulated.  The goods covered under a
\nsingle   contract  are  supplied  in  several  consignments  within  the  time
\nstipulated in the contract, which may extend to about a year.    According  to
\nthe  petitioner,  in  view of the inherent volatility in the price of silk, it
\nbecomes necessary to fix the price for the entire contracted quantity and  not
\nleave it to the vagaries of market forces.  Through negotiations, the price is
\nfixed and  stipulated  in the contract itself.  Therefore, notwithstanding the
\nmarket price at the time of actual import, the parties  to  the  contract  are
\nbound by the price fixed in the contract.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   According to the petitioner, a sales contract was entered
\ninto on 17.02.2005 for supply of 2,22,000 Kgs of Mulberry raw silk of  3A  and
\nabove grade.    The  price for the entire contracted quantity was fixed at USD
\n13.50 \/ Kg-CIF.  Between 14.03.2005 and 29.08.2005, the petitioner received  a
\ntotal quantity of 163734.76 Kgs in 19 consignments for which separate Bills of
\nEntry were  filed.    This  constituted  about  60%  of  the  total contracted
\nquantity.  These Bills of Entries were finally assessed  after  enhancing  the
\nvalue to  USD  13.94  \/  kG-CIF.    Because  of  urgency  for  release  of the
\nconsignments, the petitioner accepted the enhancement and cleared  the  goods.
\nUnder  the  same  contract, the petitioner filed Bill of Entry No.875113 dated
\n15.09.2005 for clearance of 9095.10 kgs of Mulberry raw silk.   This  was  not
\npermitted to  be  cleared.    While  the  petitioner  was  seeking  release on
\nprovisional assessment basis, a show cause  notice  bearing  No.(SEC.NO)  SCN\/
\nGR.3  & 4 \/ 7 \/ 2005 (MAIN NO) SCN \/ GR 3 & 4 \/ 470 \/ 2005 JOB NO.4602 \/ 2 005
\ndated 29.11.2005 was issued to the petitioner seeking to enhance the value  on
\nthe  ground  that  there existed a higher contemporaneous price of USD 22.36 \/
\nKg-CIF.  This show cause notice was adjudicated upon by the  third  respondent
\nby  order  dated  25.01.2006,  rejecting the transaction value declared by the
\npetitioner and fixing the value for the purpose of assessment at USD  22.36  \/
\nKg-CIF.  This order was received by the petitioner on 27.01.2006.  Challenging
\nthe  above  said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Customs
\n(Appeals), who heard the matter on 06.02.2006.  On 16.02.2006, in Appeal No.97
\nof 2006,  the  Appellate  Commissioner  set  aside  the  order  of  the  third
\nrespondent  and  allowed  the  appeal filed by the petitioner holding that the
\ngoods imported under  the  contract  dated  17.02.2005  were  required  to  be
\nassessed on  the  basis  of  the value of USD 13.94 \/ Kg.CIF.  Even after this
\norder, the consignment was not cleared.  The petitioner was informed that  the
\ngoods were released provisionally with 50% Bank Guarantee for the differential
\nduty between the  unit  price  USD  13.5  \/ Kg.  CIF and USD 22.36 \/ Kf.  CIF.
\nThereafter, the petitioner moved this Court in Writ Petition No.5697  of  2006
\nto  quash  this communication dated 24.02.2006 and direct the release of goods
\nin terms of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).  The  writ  petition  was
\ndisposed  of on 02.03.2006 directing the third respondent to release the goods
\nin terms of order  in  Appeal  No.97  of  2006  dated  16.02.2006  unless  the
\ndepartment  either  decided not to file an appeal or failed to get an order of
\nstay.  The second respondent filed an appeal to the CESTAT.    On  20.03.2006,
\nthe CESTAT rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue upholding the order of the
\nCommissioner (Appeals) and held that the goods covered under the contract were
\nrequired to  be  assessed at USD 1 3.94 per kg CIF.  Again the respondents did
\nnot release the goods .  They informed the petitioner that they would move the
\nSupreme Court.  Therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in  W.P.No.9284  of
\n2006 seeking  immediate  release of the goods.  This was disposed of directing
\nthe third respondent to follow unreservedly the order of CESTAT and to release
\nthe consignment in terms of the order of CESTAT dated 20.0 3.2006.  The  goods
\nwere released  on  07.04.2006.   The order passed by the CESTAT was challenged
\nbefore the Supreme Court, which dismissed the civil appeal  at  the  admission
\nstage itself  on  10.07.2006.    While  these  proceedings  were  pending, the
\npetitioner had made further  imports  under  the  same  sales  contract  dated
\n17.02.2005 on various dates, the details of which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        1.  Bill of Entry No.882827 dated 28.09.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2.  Bill of Entry No.886036 dated 04.10.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.  Bill of Entry No.897030 dated 24.10.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.  Bill of Entry No.927999 dated 15.12.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.  Bill of Entry No.940217 dated 05.01.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  spite  of  the  order  passed by the CESTAT and this Court, the goods were
\npermitted  “only  on  furnishing  personal  bond  pending  decision  from  the
\nHonourable Supreme   Court.    ”  Since  the  petitioner  was  incurring  huge
\nexpenditure by way of demurrage, the petitioner complied  with  the  condition
\nand cleared  the  goods.    Thereafter, two more Bills of Entry under the same
\ncontract were  filed  by  the  petitioner.    Samples  were  drawn  from   the
\nconsignment   and  were  sent  for  testing  as  to  the  correctness  of  the
\ndeclaration.  Once again, the petitioner requested that goods may be  released
\nin  terms  of  order  of  the CESTAT, valuing the goods at USD 13.94 \/ Kg-CIF.
\nOnce again the third respondent did not permit clearance of the  goods.    The
\npetitioner  brought  to  the  notice of the third respondent the directions of
\nthis Court in W.P.No.928 4 of 2006 to comply with the CESTAT order.    Instead
\nof  releasing  the  goods,  the  third  respondent  issued communication dated
\n04.07.2006 calling upon the petitioner to approach  him  for  release  of  the
\ngoods  against  a PD Bond \/ Bank guarantee pending issue of show cause notice.
\nOn 07.07.2006, the third respondent issued a show cause  notice  on  the  same
\nlines as  the earlier show cause notices.  It is this show cause notice, which
\nis challenged here.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  According to  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  Mr.Habibullah
\nBasha, the  show  cause  notice  is  without  jurisdiction.  On the same issue
\nraised in an earlier show cause notice, in relation to  goods  imported  under
\nthe  same  contract  as  the goods that are subject matter of the present show
\ncause notice, the Department’s stand has been rejected and so it is  not  open
\nto  the  third respondent to again rely on the same grounds for issuing a show
\ncause notice and refusing to  release  the  consignment.    According  to  the
\nlearned  Senior  Counsel,  though  it  is  true  that  normally  Courts do not
\ninterfere at the stage of show cause notice, in the present case, in  view  of
\nthe  deliberate  and  defiant stand of the third respondent, the show cause of
\nnotice deserves to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Habibullah Basha, relied on 1996
\n(82 ) E.L.T.  20 (Mad.) – Union Trading Company v.  Union of  India<\/a>  where  it
\nwas  held  that  when an order is passed by the appellate authority, the lower
\nauthority cannot refuse to release the goods and that it is a  clear  case  of
\nthe department  to  disregard  the  order of the statutory authority.  All the
\nwrit petitions were allowed and directions were issued for  release  of  goods
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  2006   (196)   E.L.T.     400  (S.C.)  –  Hindustan  Poles
\nCorporation v.  Commissioner of C.  Ex., Calcutta,<\/a> which arose out of  a  show
\ncause notice  was  also relied on.  The question was as to whether the process
\nundertaken by the appellants amounted to ‘manufacture’.    The  Supreme  Court
\nreferred  to  the various decisions on the same issue and held that in view of
\nthe settled legal position, the activity of the appellants of  merely  joining
\nof  three  pipes,  one with other, of different dimensions to obtain a desired
\nlength can by  no  stretch  of  imagination  be  brought  within  category  of
\nmanufacture.  The Supreme Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        ”  Before  issuance  of  show cause notices the Revenue must carefully
\ntake into consideration the settled law  which  has  been  crystallized  by  a
\nseries of judgments of this Court.  The Revenue must make serious endeavour to
\nensure that all those who ought to pay excise duty must pay but in the process
\nthe  Revenue  must  refrain  from sending of indiscriminate show cause notices
\nwithout proper application of mind.  This is  absolutely  imperative  to  curb
\nunnecessary   and  avoidable  litigation  in  Courts  leading  to  unnecessary
\nharassment and waste of time of all concerns including Tribunals and Courts.”\n<\/p>\n
                8.  2006 (199) E.L.T.  209 (Guj)  Topland Engines Pvt.  Ltd.,
\nv.  Union of India was also relied on, wherein it was held that  the  issuance
\nof  show  cause  notice by the department refusing to implement the Tribunal’s
\norder is not legal.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  took
\nnotice  on  behalf of the respondents and would submit that there is huge time
\ngap between the first Bill of Entry and the latest Bill of Entry,  in  respect
\nof which,  the  present  show  cause  notice has been issued.  Admittedly, the
\nprices of silk had gone and in those circumstances, the petitioner  cannot  be
\nheard  to  say  that the transaction value for the latest import should be the
\nsame as the transaction value for the earlier import, when during that period,
\nthe price of silk had gone up.  Learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  would
\nalso submit that when all over the country, other importers have paid duty for
\nthe  same goods at a higher value, the petitioner cannot peg the department to
\naccept the value of 13.95 USD \/ Kg.  CIF.  (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4 40
\nSpecial Director v.  Mohd.  Ghulam Ghouse<\/a> was referred to and it was submitted
\nthat normally, this Court should not restrain the statutory  authorities  from
\nproceeding  further after issuance of the show cause notice and writ petitions
\nchallenging show cause notice, should  not  be  entertained  as  a  matter  of
\nroutine,  on  the  other  hand,  writ  petitioner should rather be directed to
\nrespond to the notice.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Rules 3, 4, and 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination  of
\nPrice of Imported goods) Rules 1988 (Rules in short) are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                It  is  on  the  basis  of these Rules that the imported goods
\nshall be valued.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Determination of the method of valuation:   For  the  purposes  of
\nthese rules –\n<\/p>\n
                (i)  subject  to  rules 9 and 10A, the value of imported goods
\nshall be the transaction value;\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of
\nclause (i), the value shall be determined by proceeding  sequentially  through
\nrules 5 to 8 of these rules.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Transaction  value:  – (1) The transaction value of imported goods
\nshall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export
\nto India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The transaction value of imported goods  under  sub-rule(1)  above
\nshall be accepted:\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (a)  the  sale  is in the ordinary course of trade under fully
\ncompetitive conditions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b) the  sale  does  not  involve  any  abnormal  discount  or
\nreduction from the ordinary competitive price;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (c)  the  sale  does  not involve special discounts limited to
\nexclusive agents;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (d) objective and quantifiable data exist with regard  to  the
\nadjustments  required  to  be  made,  under  the  provisions of rule 9, to the
\ntransaction value.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (e) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use  of
\nthe goods by the buyer other than restrictions which –\n<\/p>\n
                (i)   are  imposed  or  required  by  law  or  by  the  public
\nauthorities in India;\n<\/p>\n
                        or\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) limit the geographical area in which  the  goods  may  be
\nresold; or\n<\/p>\n
                (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods;\n<\/p>\n
        (f)   the   sale  or  price  is  not  subject  to  same  condition  or
\nconsideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of  the  goods
\nbeing valued;\n<\/p>\n
        (g)  no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use
\nof the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly  to  the  seller,
\nunless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions
\nof Rule 9 of these rules; and<\/p>\n
        (h)  the  buyer  and  seller  are  not related, or where the buyer and
\nseller are related, that transaction value is acceptable for customs  purposes
\nunder the provisions of sub-rule (3) below.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)  (a) where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value
\nshall be accepted provided that the examination of the  circumstances  of  the
\nsale  of  the  imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence
\nthe price.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) In a sale between related persons, the transaction value shall  be
\naccepted,  whenever  the  importer demonstrates that the declared value of the
\ngoods being valued,  closely  approximates  to  one  of  the  following  value
\nascertained at or about the same time –\n<\/p>\n
                (i)  the  transaction  value of identical goods, or of similar
\ngoods, in sales to unrelated buyers in India;\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) the deductive value for identical goods or similar goods;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iii) the computed value for identical goods or similar goods.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Provided that in applying the  values  used  for  comparison,  due  to
\naccount  shall  be  taken  of  demonstrated  difference  in commercial levels,
\nquantity levels, adjustments in accordance with the provisions of  Rule  9  of
\nthese rules and cost incurred by the seller in sales in which he and the buyer
\nare not related;\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Residual  method:    –  (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of
\nthese rules, where the value of imported goods cannot be determined under  the
\nprovisions of any of the proceeding rules, the value shall be determined using
\nreasonable  means  consistent  with  the  principles and general provisions of
\nthese rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52  of
\n1962) and on the basis of data available in India.\n<\/p>\n
                (2)  No value shall be determined under the provisions of this
\nrule on the basis of –\n<\/p>\n
                (i) the selling price in India of the goods produced in India;\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) a system which provides for the  acceptance  for  customs
\npurposes of the highest of the two alternative values;\n<\/p>\n
                (iii)  the  price  of  the goods on the domestic market of the
\ncountry of exportation;\n<\/p>\n
                (iii a) the cost of  production  other  than  computer  values
\nwhich  have  been determined for identical or similar goods in accordance with
\nthe provisions of rule 7A.\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) the price of the goods for the export to a country  other
\nthan India;\n<\/p>\n
                (v) minimum customs values; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (vi) arbitrary or fictitious values.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                11.   It  is  not  disputed  that the goods imported under the
\nlatest Bill of Entry forms part of the contract dated 17.02.2005.  Even in the
\nimpugned order, there is a reference to  this,  as  seen  from  the  following
\nlines:-\n<\/p>\n
        ”  As  stated  in  para  (1) supra, goods covered by both the bills of
\nentry have been imported at a unit price of USD 13.50 \/ Kg based on a contract
\nsigned approximately 16 months prior to shipment of the subject goods.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.  The earlier show  cause  notice  dated  29.11.2005  reads
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” 9.    Further  the  Apex Court, in the case of M\/s.Rajkumar Knitting
\nMills (P) Ltd., vs.  Collector of Customs, Bombay<\/a> [1988 (98) ELT292 (SC)]  has
\nheld  that:-  Valuation  (Customs)  Relevant date- Contract between buyer and
\nseller may have a bearing in governing inter se relationship between  the  two
\nbut relevant date for determination of value for assessment of customs duty is
\nthe  date  of  importation or exportation and not the date of contract-Similar
\ngoods imported by another importer from the same supplier at  about  the  same
\ntime  (difference of about a week only between the dates of shipment and dates
\nof arrival of goods in the two imports).\n<\/p>\n
                In the case of M\/s.Vikram  International  vs.    Collector  of
\nCustoms, Kandla<\/a> [2000 (124) ELT 731 (Tribunal) ] has held that burden of proof
\nto  show under valuation on the department but, once the department is able to
\nplace evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price, the  burden  shifts
\nto  the  assessee  to  establish  that Proforma Invoice pice will still be the
\nactual price for purposes of Section 14 (1) (a) of  Customs  Act,  1962    In
\nabsence of any plausible explanation about the supplier not revising the price
\nto  the  level of prevailing price, much lower price shown in proforma invoice
\nnot acceptable  Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  And whereas it  appears  that  the  declared  transaction
\nvalue  merits  rejection in view of the prevailing higher contemporaneous unit
\nprice at about USD 22.36\/Kg.  (average) at (or) about the  same  period.    It
\nappears that the value may not be determinable under subsequent Rules in terms
\nof  Rule  3  (2)  of  CVR, 1988, in the absence of any evidences of imports to
\ndetermine the value under Rule 5, 6 and  quantifiable  date  with  details  to
\narrive at  the  value  under Rule 7 and 7A of CVR, 1988.  Therefore, the value
\nhas to be re-determined under the residuary Rule by adopting Rule  8  of  CVR,
\n1988,  without  recourse  to  quantity  covered  by the contract vis-a-vis the
\nquantity covered by this bill of entry.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Considering the urgency of the issue  and  representation
\npending  in  this regard, instead of provisional release, M\/s.Pushpanjali Silk
\nPvt.Ltd., Bangalore, are hereby directed to  show  cause  to  the  undersigned
\nwithin fifteen days from the date of receipt of this Notice as to why:-\n<\/p>\n
                (i) the declared invoice value of USD 13.5\/Kg.  Which is based
\non  the  contract price entered into in February 2005, should not be rejected;
\nand\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) Unit value of USD 22.36\/Kg (CIF) should  not  be  adopted
\nunder Rule 8 of CVR, 1988, by adopting the contemporary import price;\n<\/p>\n
                12.   The  importers are further called upon to produce at the
\ntime of showing cause all the evidence, documentary or  otherwise  upon  which
\nthey intend to rely in support of their defence.”\n<\/p>\n
                                ***\n<\/p>\n
                        13.   The  present  impugned  show  cause notice reads
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT)
\nCUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI
\nCHENNAI 600 001   <\/p>\n
Dated:  07.07.2006<\/p>\n
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 124 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962                 <\/p>\n
SHOWCAUSE NOTICE SECTION NO.SCN\/GR3-4\/12\/2006
\nSHOWCAUSE NOTICE MAIN NO.SCN\/GR3-4\/529\/2006           <\/p>\n
JOB NO.5581\/2006   <\/p>\n
Despatched on 07.07.2006  <\/p>\n
                Sub:  Import of Mulberry raw silk by M\/s.Pushpanjali      Silk
\n(P) Ltd., Vide Bills of entry No.230770                         dated   5.6.06
\nand 239300 dated 19.6.06  mis-                 declaration of Value -Drawl of
\nadjudication                            proceedings  Issue of SCN-Reg.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ****<\/p>\n
        M\/s.Pushpanjali Silk (P) Ltd., Bangalore, filed the EDI bills of entry
\nNo.230770  dated 5.6.06 and 239300 dated 19.6.06 through their CHA M\/s.Viknesh
\nTravel & Cargo Pvt.Ltd., for assessment and clearance of  ‘Mulberry  Raw  Silk
\n20\/22D with  CIQ  3A  Grade  &  above’  of  China  origin.  The details of the
\nrespective invoice, quantity of goods  supplied  there  under  and  the  value
\nthereof in respect of the two bills of entry are as below:-\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
\n\nB\/E.No.& Date           Invoice No.&    Quantity Invoice Value\n                                date                    (Kgs.)  USD (CIF)\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
230770                  IE\/JR06\/06 dt.  16,169.47 218287.85\n05.06.06                        30.04.06\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————–<\/p>\n
\nB\/E.No.& Date           Invoice No.&    Quantity Invoice Value\n                                date                    (Kgs.)  USD (CIF)\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
239300                  IE\/JR07\/06 dt.  17,811.39 240453.77\n19.06.06                        16.05.06\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
        The  above  referred  two invoices have been raised by the supplier M\/
\ns.International Enterprises, Hong Kong, for supply of  the  subject  goods  at
\nunit price of SD 13.5\/Kg based on contract No.IE\/PSR-R503\/2005 dated 17.02.05.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Both  the importer and the CHA had subscribed to a declaration as
\nto the truth of the contents of the bill of entry as provided under Section 46
\nof the Customs Act, 1962, that the information furnished  was  true,  complete
\nand correct in every aspect, that they have not received any other document or
\ninformation  showing  different  price,  value, quantity or description of the
\ngoods and that if at any time they receive any document  showing  a  different
\nstate of fact bearing on valuation, they would immediately make the same known
\nto the Commissioner of Customs.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The goods were examined and samples were drawn and sent for test.
\nOn testing it has been confirmed that the goods are Mulberry Raw Silk 3A grade
\nas declared.  As stated in para 1 supra, goods covered by both  the  bills  of
\nentry  have been imported at a unit price of USD 1 3.50\/Kg based on a contract
\nsigned approximately 16  months  prior  to  shipment  of  the  subject  goods.
\nHowever,  higher  contemporaneous  import  values were noticed in NIDB data in
\nrespect of  goods  of  similar  nature  of  Chinese  origin  imported  through
\nBangalore Custom House as given below:-\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————–
\nSl.No.  B\/E.No.& Description\/Grade Unit Price Quantity imported
\nDate                            (approx)
\n                                                USD\/Kg.\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
1.  122046\/     Mulberry raw silk 29.77         8814.43 Kgs\n30.05.06        20D-3A\/4A grade\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
2.      121817\/ Mulberry ra silk                29.76   9069.36 kgs.\n        26.05.06        20\/22D-3A\/4A\/5A\n                        grade.\n\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
3.      120652 \/        Mulberry raw silk               35.09   9042.49 kgs\n        6.5.06  20\/22D-3A\/4A\n                        grade\n\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
4.      120832 \/        Mulberry raw silk               35.60   9612.51 kgs.\n        9.5.06  20\/22D-3A\/4A grade.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        The  contemporaneous  import price noticed for the item at about USD 2
\n9.30\/Kg.  (approx) (the least contemporaneous  value  noticed  in  respect  of
\ngoods of similar nature) is considerably higher than what has been declared in
\nthe impugned  bills  of  entry.    The  declared  unit  price of USD 13.5\/Kg.,
\ntherefore, appears to be low  and  not  acceptable,  in  view  of  the  higher
\ncontemporaneous  prices  prevailing at the ‘time’ and ‘place’ of import of the
\nimpugned goods, at (or) about the same period.  Further the  goods  are  being
\nimported from  China,  but  the  supplier  is  from Hong Kong.  Therefore, the
\nsuppliers are not manufacturers.  The price cannot be static for a  period  of
\n16 months as the goods is agricultural products.  Further, it appears that the
\ninternational  price  of  mulberrry  raw silk are at variance and considerably
\nhigher than the prices declared by the importers.  From the above  it  appears
\nthat  the  import  prices  declared by the importer are not in harmony or even
\napproximate or close to the prevailing international prices.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In terms of Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the  Customs  Act,196
\n2,  the  international  price  prevailing at the time and place of importation
\nshall be the basis of valuation for levy of Customs duty.  Further sub section
\n(1A) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962,  provides  for  determination  of
\nvalue  of  imported  goods  in  accordance with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988,
\nsubject to the provisions  of  sub  section  (1).    Hence,  it  appears  that
\nprovisions  under sub-ordinate subsection (1A) can not override the provisions
\nunder main sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act,  1962.    In  the
\ninstant  case,  the  unit  value of USD 13.5\/Kg based on the contract has been
\ndeclared as transaction value under Rule 4 of  the  Customs  Valuation  Rules,
\n1988,  enacted  under  the  sub-ordinate sub section (1A) of Section 14 of the
\nCustoms Act, 1962.  However, this unit price is not  the  international  price
\nprevailing  at  the  time and place of importation as envisaged under the main
\nsubsection (1) of Section 14 of the Customs  Act,  1962  and  hence  the  said
\ndeclared  transaction  value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988
\nis not acceptable.  In other  words  the  declared  transaction  value  merits
\nrejection  as  it  does not meet the statutory requirement of main sub-section
\n(1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 196 2.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Further the amended Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of CVR,  1988,  reads  as
\nfollows:- rule  4 (2):  the transaction value of imported goods under sub-rule
\n(1) above shall be accepted:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that –\n<\/p>\n
a) The sale is in the ordinary course  of  trade  under  fully  competitive
\nconditions;\n<\/p>\n
b) The sale does not involve any abnormal discount or reduction from       the
\nordinary competitive price;\n<\/p>\n
c)      The sale does not involve special discounts limited to exclusive
\nagents;\n<\/p>\n
d)      Objective and quantifiable data exist with regard to the
\nadjustments required to be made, under the provisions of Rule   9    to    the
\ntransaction value;\n<\/p>\n
        Hence  it appears that as per the amendment to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of
\nCVR, 1988 (notification 41\/2001 (NT) dated 7.9.01) the  prescribed  conditions
\nin  the  proviso  there  under  may  not  be  met  by such contract prices and
\ntherefore the declared invoice\/transaction value may not be  acceptable  under
\nRule 4(2)  of  CVR,  1988.    In  the  instant  case  they  have  furnished  a
\ncontract-dated 17.2.05 that is about 16 months old.  Therefore,  the  contract
\nprice  does  not  appear  to  represent the transaction value at this point of
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The Notices vide their letters  dated  29.6.06  and  30.6.06  have
\nreferred to the Order of the Honourable High court of Madras in W.P.No.9284 of
\n2006  and Final Order No.174 of 2006 dated 20.3.2006 of the Honourable CESTAT,
\nChennai, and have contended that the goods are required to be assessed at  USD
\n13.94\/Kg.  (CIF)  and  clearance  permitted  accordingly.  However, it appears
\nthat the orders of the Honourable CESTAT and Honourable High Court referred to
\nby the Noticee refer to earlier and separate consignments for a single bill of
\nentry and hence the ratio of the said orders cannot be made applicable in  the
\npresent imports.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Above  all  the  Apex Court, in the case of M\/s.Rajkumar Knitting
\nMills (P) Ltd., vs.  Collector of Customs, Bombay<\/a> [1998 (98) ELT  292  (  SC)]
\nhas  held that:- “valuation (Customs)  Relevant date  contract between buyer
\nand seller may have a bearing in governing inter se relationship  between  the
\ntwo,  but  relevant  date for determination of value for assessment of customs
\nduty is the date of importation or exportation and not the date of contract”
\nApex Court had further held that “the words ordinarily sold  and  offered  for
\nsale do not refer to the contract between the supplier and the importer but to
\nthe   prevailing   price   in  the  (international)  market  on  the  date  of
\nimportation”.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  In the  case  of  M\/s.Vikram  International  vs,.    Collector  of
\nCustoms,  Kandia  [2000  (124)  ELT 731 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal has held that
\nburden of proof to show under-valuation is on the  department  but,  once  the
\ndepartment  is  able  to  place  evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher
\nprice, the burden shifts to the assessee to establish  that  proforma  invoice
\nprice  will  still  be  the actual price for purposes of Section 14 (1) (a) of
\nCustoms Act, 1962.  In the absence of  any  plausible  explanation  about  the
\nsupplier  not  revising the price to the level of prevailing price, much lower
\nprice shown in proforma invoice is not acceptable under Section 14 of  Customs
\nAct, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  view  of  the  above, the declared transaction value which is
\nbased on a contract entered into 16 months prior to this present imports,  and
\nas  the  prevailing  contemporaneous  unit  price is at about USD 2 9.30 \/ Kg.
\n(average) at the time and place of importation during June’ 06 appears  to  be
\nnot acceptable.    It  appeared that the value might not be determinable under
\nsubsequent rules in terms of Rule 3 (ii) of  CVR,  1988,  in  the  absence  of
\nevidence  of  imports  to determine the value under Rule 5, 6 and quantifiable
\ndata with details to arrive at the value under rule 7 and  7A  of  CVR,  1988.
\nTherefore, the value has to be determined under the residuary Rule by adopting
\nRule  8  of  CVR,  1988,  without recourse to quantity covered by the contract
\nvis-a-vis the quantity covered by these bills of entry.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Therefore you are called upon to show cause  to  the  undersigned
\nwithin  fifteen  days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice as to
\nwhy:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) The declared invoice value of USD 13.5\/Kg., which is based on  the
\ncontract  price entered into in February 2005, and not the prevailing price in
\nJune ’06 should not be rejected; and\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) Unit value of USD 29.30\/Kg (CIF) should not be adopted under Rule
\n8 of CVR, 1988, by adopting the prevailing contemporary import  price  at  the
\ntime (May-June’06) and place of importation.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  importers are further called upon to produce at the time of
\nshowing cause all the evidence, documentary  or  otherwise,  upon  which  they
\nintend to rely in support of their defense.\n<\/p>\n
***\n<\/p>\n
                14.   It  will  be  seen  that  the contents of the show cause
\nnotices dated 29.11.2005 and 07.07.2006 are almost  identical.    Against  the
\nearlier  show  cause  notice,  an appeal was filed and the appellate authority
\nnoted that there is no allegation that the contract price between the supplier
\nand the buyer is obtained under extraneous situations or there was  any  extra
\nflow  of money in the transaction through authorised or unauthorised channels.
\nThe only ground on which the declared price had not been accepted  is  because
\nof higher contemporaneous prices prevailing at the time and place of import of
\nthe impugned  goods.    The appellate authority found that the lower authority
\nhad not challenged the correctness of the contract price, but  had  felt  that
\nthe  contract  price dated 17.02.2005 which was about seven months old, is not
\nacceptable  and  would  merit  rejection,  since  it  is  not  the   prevalent
\ninternational market  price.    The  only  difference between the earlier show
\ncause notice and the present show cause notice is that  in  the  earlier  show
\ncause  notice, the contract price was refuted because it was seven months old,
\nwhereas, with the passage of time the same contract price is  16  months  old.
\nThe  appellate  authority  rejected  the contention of the revenue and held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        ” …  In the present case, the imports  have  been  made  within  the
\ncontract period.  The department has not challenged the contract price for its
\ncorrectness,  or found that the goods have been supplied beyond the contracted
\namount.  In fact earlier clearance has been  permitted  as  per  the  contract
\nprice.   There  is no allegation that the appellants paid to the supplier more
\nthan the contracted value.   This  being  so  the  contract  price  cannot  be
\ndiscarded.   The  lower authority has tried to create two categories of prices
\nto fit this situation, i.e., ‘contract price’ and ‘market price’.  He has then
\ngone on to hold that the contract price is not a price in the ordinary  course
\nof  trade  under  fully  competitive  conditions  but  is  subject  to certain
\nconditions as stipulated in the contract and hence  the  same  is  liable  for
\nrejection.  This  stand  is not correct.  Market price for different class and
\ncategories of buyers differ for the same goods.  The price of a commodity when
\nsold on contract, or to a distributor, or to an OE user, or to buyers of  huge
\nlots, or  to  a  final consumer etc.  may all vary for the same goods from the
\nsame seller.  All these may have different ‘market prices’.   Any  attempt  to
\nstandardize  these values to one ‘market value’ stating the provisions of Rule
\n4(2) of the Valuation Rules will fail.  The judgments cited by  the  appellant
\nare relevant in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
                The  attempt  of  the  lower  Authority to treat a contract as
\nbeing ipso facto ineligible to be treated as the transaction  value,  even  if
\nthe  declared  transaction  value  had  been  arrived  at purely on commercial
\nconsiderations,  and  to  have  it  subjected   to   a   ‘market   test’   for
\ncontemporaneous  values  with  every  import  is not supported by law, as made
\nclear by the relevant portion of the ‘Eicher Tractor’  judgment  cited  above.
\nThe  proper officer can challenge a declared transaction value as provided for
\nunder rule 10 A of the Valuation rules, not for the pre-mediated  reason  that
\nit  is a contract price, but because the price is unacceptable for the reasons
\nset out in rule 4 (2) of the Valuation Rules and this should be applicable for
\nthe entire contract goods.  It  cannot  be  that  a  part  of  the  goods  are
\npermitted  at  one  price  and  the  other parts at different other comparable
\nprices, using the said Rule.  Before doing so he would  have  to  compare  the
\ncontract  price  with  similar  other  prices, and the conditions of the other
\ncontracts, or bring out how the prices of other buyers  are  relevant  to  the
\ncase.   However,  once  having  accepted  a  contract price, and permitted the
\nclearance of goods, it would hold good  for  the  entire  contracted  quantity
\nunless omissions or commissions having a bearing on the value are subsequently
\nshown, and then this value would have to be adopted for the earlier clearances
\nas well  under  the  same  contract.    There is hence merit in the appellants
\ncontention that when out of a total 27 7 Mts covered under the contract  dated
\n17.02.2005,  the appellant had imported and cleared 164 MTS (60% of the entire
\ncontracted quantity) at the price  of  US$  13.94  \/  Kg.    CIF,  the  sudden
\nenhancement of the value to US$ 22.36 \/ Kg.  CIF was not warranted.\n<\/p>\n
                In  view  of  the  above  discussion  and  the facts and legal
\npositions stated therein the lower authority’s order  is  set  aside  and  the
\nappeal  is allowed for the transaction value of US$ 13.94 \/ Kg-CIF accepted by
\nthe appellant.  ” (Emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
                15.  In the appeal filed against the order of  Commissioner  (
\nAppeals), CESTAT held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” …   We are of the considered view that the apex Court’s ruling was
\nrightly followed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case.    The
\nsubject goods were imported in terms of a contract indicating USD 13.50 as the
\nunit price agreed between the contracting parties.  The import was made within
\nthe contracted  period.    The department has no case that any amount over and
\nabove the contracted price was paid by the importer to the supplier, nor is it
\ntheir case that the importer was “related” to the supplier or that  the  price
\npaid was   influenced   by   any  extra-commercial  considerations.    In  the
\ncircumstance, there is no valid reason to reject the transaction value of  the
\ngoods under  Rule 4 (1) read with Section 14.  This is particularly so, as the
\nappellant  has  not  established  that  any  of  the   special   circumstances
\nparticularized under Rule 4(2) existed in this case.”\n<\/p>\n
        ”  We  have already held that there is no valid reason in this case to
\nreject the declared value of the goods.  The  question  now  is  what  is  the
\n‘declared value’.  What was declared in the Bill of Entry was USD 13.5 per kg.
\nBut,  subsequently, the assessee agreed to a marginal enhancement to USD 13.94
\nper kg.  Thus the declared value stood modified as  USD  13.94  per  kg.    on
\naccount of  the  assessee’s  voluntary  acquiescence.   It was this value (USD
\n13.94 per kg.) which has been accepted by the lower appellate authority as the
\nbasis of the assessable value of the goods.   In  view  of  the  apex  Court’s
\nruling in Eicher Tractors (supra) and the Tribunal’s decision in Andhra Sugars
\n(supra)  and  Agarwal  Industries  (supra),  we  have  to sustain the order of
\nlearned Commissioner (Appeals).  In the  result,  the  Revenue’s  appeal  gets
\ndismissed”.\n<\/p>\n
The  civil  appeal  filed against this order has been dismissed by the Supreme
\nCourt.  On the very same basis and for the  same  reasons,  the  present  show
\ncause notice has been issued.\n<\/p>\n
                16.   In  the  orders  of  the  appellate Authority and CESTAT
\nextracted above, clear reasons are given why the value declared in the Bill of
\nentry cannot be rejected.  It is only by  acquiescence  that  the  petitioners
\npaid USD 13.94 per kg-CIF..  The impugned order shows that the value has to be
\ndetermined under  Rule 8.  The circumstances under which Rule 8 can be invoked
\nfor valuation of imported goods has been considered in (2005) 3 Supreme  Court
\nCases 265  Commr.    of Customs v.  Bureau Veritas.  There the<\/a> goods imported
\nwere oil rigs which was  subject  to  volatile  fluctuation  in  price.    The
\ncontract was entered into in January 1999, the import was in May 2000.\n<\/p>\n
        “16.   The  ambit  and  method of rule 4 was elaborately dealt with by
\nthis Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd.  vs.  Commr.  of Customs.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        17.  It is true that the Rules are framed under Section  (1)  and  are
\nsubject to  the  conditions  in  Section  14  (1).  Rule 4 is in fact directly
\nrelatable to Section 14 (1).  Both Section 14 (1) and Rule 4 provide that  the
\nprice  paid  by  an  importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of commerce
\nshall be taken to  be  the  value  in  the  absence  of  any  of  the  special
\ncircumstances indicated in Section 14 (1) and particularised in Rule 4 (2).\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Rule  4(1)  speaks  of the transaction value.  Utilisation of the
\ndefinite article indicates that what should be accepted as the value  for  the
\npurpose  of  assessment  to  customs  duty  is the price actually paid for the
\nparticular transaction, unless of course the price  is  unacceptable  for  the
\nreasons set  out  in Rule 4 (2).  ‘Payable” in the context of the langugage of
\nRule  4  (1)  must,  therefore,  be  read  as  referring  to  “the  particular
\ntransaction”  and  payability  in  respect  of  the  transaction  envisages  a
\nsituation where payment of price may be deferred.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  That Rule 4 is limited to the transaction in question  is
\nalso  supported by the provisions of the other rules each of which provide for
\nalternate modes of valuation and allow evidence of value of goods  other  than
\nthose under  assessment to be the basis of the assessable value.  Thus, Rule 5
\nallows for the transaction value to be determined on the  basis  of  identical
\ngoods  imported into India at the same time; Rule 6 allows for the transaction
\nvalue to be determined on the value of similar goods imported  into  India  at
\nthe same  time  as  the  subject  goods.    Where there are no contemporaneous
\nimports into India, the value is to be determined under Rule 7 by a process of
\ndeduction in the manner provided therein.  If this is not possible  the  value
\nis to  be computed under Rule 7-A.  When value of the imported goods cannot be
\ndetermined under any  of  these  provisions,  the  value  is  required  to  be
\ndetermined under Rule 8.\n<\/p>\n
        ‘using  reasonable  means  consistent  with the principles and general
\nprovisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section  14  of  the  Customs
\nact, 1962 (52 of 1962) and on the basis of data available in India.’
\n        If  the phrase ‘the transaction value’ used in Rule 4 were not limited
\nto the particular transaction then  the  other  rules  which  refer  to  other
\ntransactions and data would become redundant.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   It  is only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected,
\nthat  under  Rule  3  (ii)  the  value  shall  be  determined  by   proceeding
\nsequentially through  Rules  5  to  8  of  the  Rules.    Conversely,  if  the
\ntransaction value can be determined under Rule 4 (1) and does not  fall  under
\nany  of  the exceptions in Rule 4 (2), there is no question of determining the
\nvalue under the subsequent rules.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  In the present case, in respect of goods imported earlier
\nbut covered by the same contract, the appellate authority had found that there
\nis no reason to reject the transaction value; and the goods had  been  cleared
\nearlier on the basis of a particular contract price, so it would hold good for
\nthe  entire  contracted  quantity,  unless certain factors, which are having a
\nbearing on the value, are subsequently shown, in which case that  value  would
\nhave to  be  adopted for the earlier clearances as well.  In the present case,
\neven in the impugned order, no mention of omission or commission or allegation
\nthat the transaction value does not reflect the contract value has been  made.
\nTherefore,  for the goods covered by the same contract and imported within the
\ncontract period(viz., within 3rd September 2006) two different  values  cannot
\nbe adopted.   Each consignment covered by each Bill of Entry forms part of the
\ngoods supplied under one single contract dated 17.02.2005.  The  reasoning  of
\nthe appellate authority as well as the CESTAT with regard to the earlier Bills
\nof Entry  are  equally  applicable to the present case.  In spite of that, the
\nthird respondent has chosen to issue the show cause notice in defiance of  the
\nearlier  decision  of  the  CESTAT  in respect of goods cleared under the same
\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  With regard to the same petitioner, in respect of imports
\nunder the same contract, it has been held that the contract value  alone  will
\nbe the  transaction  value.    This  order  of the appellate authority has now
\nbecome final.  The present import is within the contract period.  The  reasons
\ngiven in  the earlier show cause notice have been rejected outright.  The same
\nreasons are given in the present impugned notice.  If that is so, I do not see
\nwhy again and again the petitioner should be called upon to show cause  as  to
\nwhy the value fixed by the department should not be accepted.   The   attitude
\nof the department deserves reproach.\n<\/p>\n
                19.     It was contended that the show cause notice ought  not
\nto  be  quashed  and  that  if  the petitioner is allowed to import as per old
\nvalue, it would be detriment to national interest.  In  2004  (3)  SCC  440  [
\ncited  supra] relied on by the respondent, it was held that the writ petitions
\nchallenging show cause notice should not  be  entertained  unless  exceptional
\ncircumstances warrant it.  This indeed is a special case.  There is a contract
\ndated 17-02-2005,  the  period  of  contract expires in September 2006.  Goods
\nforming part of the contract have been imported in stages.  The goods imported
\nunder the earliest bills of entry were allowed to be cleared,  on  payment  of
\nduty at USD 13.94 per kg-CIF voluntarily by the petitioner though the declared
\nvalue was  USD  13.50  per  kg-CIF.  In respect of goods imported a few months
\nlater, 7 months after the contract to be precise,  a  show  cause  notice  was
\nissued calling  upon  the  petitioner  to  pay  duty at an enhanced rate.  The
\nproceedings pursuant  to  the  show  cause  notice  ended  in  favour  of  the
\npetitioner.  The  Department  fought  all the way upto the Supreme Court.  Now
\nsixteen months after the contract, when goods are imported under the  contract
\nand  within  the  contract  period, the Department raises the same objections,
\nrefusing to accept the order passed earlier that the declared  value  must  be
\naccepted.   Considering  the  history  of this case, and since the respondents
\nhave hedged and stalled at  every  stage,  it  would  be  futile  to  ask  the
\npetitioner to respond to the show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   It is in these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner
\nneed not reply to the show cause notice, since the show cause notice  deserves
\nto be  quashed.    The  show  cause notice is totally without jurisdiction and
\ntherefore stands quashed.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  The writ petition is allowed  and  the  department  shall
\nrelease  the  goods  as  expeditiously  as possible, on the value fixed by the
\nCESTAT with regard to the earlier imports covered by Bills of Entry under  the
\nsame contract dated   17.02.2005.      No   costs.    Consequently,  connected
\nMiscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
sbi\/ab\/gms\/glp<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Chief Commissioner of Customs,
\nCustom House, No.60, Rajaji
\nSalai, Chennai  1.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Commissioner of Customs
\n                (Port-Imports),
\nNo.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
\n                        (GR.  3 & 4),
\nCustom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31\/07\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN W.P.No.23282 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 Pushpanjali Silk Private Limited represented by its Director, Sanjiv Kumar Jhunjhunwala … Petitioner. -Vs- 1.The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Custom […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":6833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006"},"wordCount":6833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006","name":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-30T06:43:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpanjali-vs-the-chief-on-31-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pushpanjali vs The Chief on 31 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203130","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203130"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203130\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}