IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.01.2011 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P. NO. 1641 OF 2008 N.C. Alexander Importer & Exporter, T/D 108, Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu, Chennai.92. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Union of India, rep. By its Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2.The Chairman, Central Board for Excise and Customs, New Delhi. 3.The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai.1. 4. The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Imports),Custom House, Chennai.1. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs(Gr.I), Custom House, Chennai.1. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in and connected with order in Original No.7056/08, dated 17.1.2008, passed by the 5th respondent herein, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the goods provisionally in terms of section 17 and 18 of the Customs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act, 1962 r/w Customs Valuation Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules 2007 in respect of the imported goods (Appeals) covered under the Bill of Entry No.643484,dated 10.1.2008 on the basis of the contract price entered into with the overseas supplier. For Petitioner : Mr. B. Satishsundar For Respondents : Mr.R. Mahadevan, SCGSC ORDER This writ petition is filed to call for the records in and connected with order in Original No.7056/08, dated 17.1.2008, passed by the 5th respondent herein, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the goods provisionally in terms of section 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 r/w Customs Valuation Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules 2007 in respect of the imported goods (Appeals) covered under the Bill of Entry No.643484,dated 10.1.2008 on the basis of the contract price entered into with the overseas supplier. 2. The petitioner imported fresh apples from USA under a contract dated 31.8.2007. Goods were imported under several bills of entry. In respect of one bill of entry viz., Bill No.643484, the Assistant Commissioner, Gr.I, passed an order in Original dated 17.1.2008 rejecting the price declared, which is based on the contract dated 31.8.2007 referred to above. Petitioner filed an appeal in appeal Nos. C3/32/D/2008-Sea& C3/391/O/2008-Sea C.Cus No.363, 364/2008 dated 24.9.2008. The appeal filed by the petitioner- importer was allowed and the Appellate authority/ Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) passed the following order:- " The Department had relied upon the price of similar goods imported contemporaneously. Reliance even on the price of identical goods contemporaneously imported into India by the same vessel had been ignored by the Tribunal as seen above and the contract price was accepted as transaction value. Judicial discipline dictates that I humbly tread the path lit by the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the orders-in-original are set aside and the appeals allowed." 3. As against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no further appeal has been preferred by the department for which, the petitioner relies upon the information given by the Central Public Information Officer(Exports) at the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export) in a communication dated 14.5.2010 given in response to petitioner's query dated 5.5.2010 under Right to Information Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the present case, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner in O-IN-O NO.7056/08 dated 17.1.2008, which also relates to import of fresh apples (red delicious) imported wide bill of entry No.643484 dated 10.1.2008 and covered by the contract dated 31.8.2007, which is the same contract as in the case decided by the Appellate Authority referred to above. Since the commissioner (Appeals) has in the earlier case clearly accepted the very same contact dated 31.8.2007 with regard to valuation, the valuation has attained finality. The Deputy Commissioner's Order in the present case necessarily has to be set aside as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) will be binding on the goods imported under the present bill of entry, which is also covered by the same contract dated 31.8.2007. The valuation determined by the Deputy Commissioner has to be set aside. 5. In view of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in respect of similar goods covered by the same contract, the order-in-original challenged in the writ petition is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to consequential relief as per law. This writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1.The Secretary (Revenue), Union of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2.The Chairman, Central Board for Excise and Customs, New Delhi. 3.The Chief Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai.1. 4. The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Imports),Custom House, Chennai.1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs(Gr.I), Custom House, Chennai.1. 2 cc To Mr.B.Sathish Sunder, Advocate, SR.2569, 2024. WP No. 1641 of 2008 KM(CO) RVL 01.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/