Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 25,25(5)(6),25A,25D,194A,195

Law: Customs Rules, 2001

Section: Rr.107,110,117,118,433

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)- -Ss. 25, 25-A, 25-D, 194-A & 195-Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.107, 110, 117, 118 & 433-Determination of customs value of goods- Assessment, was made by the official of Clearance Collectorate on the basis of identical/similar transaction value as enunciated in S.25(5)(6) of the Customs Act, 1969 and Rr.117 & 118 of Customs Rules, 2001- Director, Directorate General of Valuation, determined customs value for levy of duty and taxes on import of different kind/brands of the item-Being aggrieved by said Ruling, importer filed revision application under provision of S. 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969 before Director General, Directorate General of Valuation, who determined the value of the item and ignored the fact that the Director, Directorate General of Valuation, determined no value-Validity-No cross- objection under subsection (4) of S. 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969 had been filed by the department within the stipulated period of 30 days- Director General, Directorate General of Valuation, was only empowered to re-examine the Ruling for correcting the same or improving it, if the Director had failed to adhere to the determination of value under the provisions of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969- Director General was empowered to correct the value and in case the value determined was on the higher side, he could revise the same- Director General had to confine himself within the ambit of the valuation ruling and not empowered to add a new item in the revision order, value of which had not been determined by the Director-Director General, in revision, could only, either accept the revision application, or reject the same or modify, which meant "to change some parts thereof while not changing the other parts"-Action to the contrary by the Director General was detrimental for the importer-By including the item in the revisional order, Director General travelled beyond his mandated sphere and committed a grave illegality, which was not curable hence void ab initio-Any order passed beyond the scope of law, would be deemed to be illegal-Impugned order-in-revision and Valuation Ruling by the Director General did not have any adherence…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492