Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that clause 'b' of the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.1.2012, is arbitrary and invalid, in view of the fact that a copy of the Bill of Entry No.539734, dated 14.5.2010, had not been given to the petitioner, even though the said Bill of Entry, filed by a third party, had been taken into consideration to fix the value of the goods imported by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also pointed out the fact that, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the Department is not under an obligation to provide the said documents, before the impugned order had been passed, fixing the value of the goods imported by the petitioner. 4. Paragraphs 8 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: "8.) It is respectfully submitted to refer para 2 above. The reference of Bs/E of higher values is pointer to the fact that the declared value cannot be accepted under Rule 4 of CVR 88. Department is not under obligation to provide these documents. This being the situation, where the buyer and seller are related transaction value can only be accepted provided the examinations of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price. Importer failed to demonstrate with corroborative documents to prove that their declared price is at arm's length when compared to these values of the Bs/E. The matter of different chartered accountants was brought to the notice of importer for which he averred that there are three CAs, one statutory CA, Transfer Pricing CA and one internal auditor. This aspect was to be authenticated by the IT Department and this aspect was brought to the notice of importer in PH itself. But no such authenticity documents, corroborated by IT Department, were submitted by the importer and the documents submitted in this regard are not relatable to this aspect. This aspect has been clearly brought in paras 8, 9 and 10 above. The other averments of the importer are essential parts of process of enquiry, scrutiny, and observation so as to arrive at a decision." 5. This aspect has been clearly brought in paras 8, 9 and 10 above. The other averments of the importer are essential parts of process of enquiry, scrutiny, and observation so as to arrive at a decision." 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had not been in a position to show that a copy of the Bill of Entry No.539734, dated 14.5.2010, had been furnished to the petitioner before the value of the imported goods had been fixed, based on the said Bill of Entry filed by a third party. Thus, it is seen that proper opportunity had not been given to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the respondent, fixing the value of the imported goods, based on the said Bill of Entry. 6. In such circumstances, clause 'b' of the impugned order of the respondent, dated 10.01.2012, is set aside. The respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the bill of entry No.539734, dated 14.5.2010, to the petitioner, before fixing the value of the goods imported by the petitioner, for the levy of the customs duty payable by the petitioner. The other clauses of the impugned order, dated 10.1.2012, shall remain without any alteration. The respondent shall furnish a copy of the Bill of Entry No.539734, dated 14.5.2010, to the petitioner, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the copy of the said Bill of Entry, the petitioner shall raise its objections, if any, within a period of ten days thereafter. On receipt of the objections to be raised by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.