Civil Writ Petitions No.1773 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petitions No.1773 of 2011 and other connected petitions being CWPs No.1780 and 1792 of 2011. Date of decision: 18.3.2011 M/s Gupta Agri Care Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent no.3. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.1773, 1780 and 1792 of 2011 as it is stated that all the three petitions involve common questions of law. 2. In Civil Writ Petition No.1773 of 2011, challenge is to provisional assessment on the bill of entry filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2010. 3. Case of the petitioner is that it imports Zink ash and Zink skimming as per value declared in the bill of entry which is to be cleared as per provisional or final assessment under Sections 17(5) or 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. In an earlier case, the assessment was made at a higher value without having regard to legal provisions on the basis of parameters laid down by the Department. Civil Writ Civil Writ Petitions No.1773 of 2011 -2- *** Petition No.9152 of 2010 was filed in this Court questioning the assessment based on parameters laid down by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. Vide order dated 1.12.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.9152 of 2010 M/s Ganesh Agro Vs. Union of India and others, this Court disapproved the course adopted and directed that the norms laid down by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva could not be mechanically applied, irrespective of genuineness of transaction value. Even where value was not genuine, the same was to be arrived at as per statutory requirement. In spite of the said order, the impugned order has been passed solely as per norms laid down by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva which was in violation of direction of this Court. 4. In the reply filed, it has not been disputed that the provisional assessment was being made as per norms laid down by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva but it is sought to be submitted that this Court has not disapproved the said norms. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. We find merit in the contention that in order dated 1.12.2010 provisional assessment solely on the basis of norms fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva was disapproved. The said order has become final but still in flagrant violation of the order of this Court, the impugned assessment has been made. Thus, the plea taken in the reply is clearly based on non-application of mind and cannot be accepted. An officer exercising quasi judicial jurisdiction is not expected to ignore or show incompetence in Civil Writ Petitions No.1773 of 2011 -3- *** understanding clear orders of this Court. 7. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order. The Assessing Officer may pass a fresh order in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 18, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge