2011 (2) TMI 1346 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Challenge to CESTAT Final Order on the determination of the applicable rate of duty for customs assessment.

Analysis:
The Madras High Court rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) against the CESTAT Final Order 407/2009, dated 8-4-2009, which was reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - Chennai). The Court, comprising Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and Mr. Justice N. Kirubakaran, examined the issue raised by the appellant regarding the determination of the rate of duty applicable to a case. The respondent imported goods on 28-10-1992, sold them on 18-1-1993 while in the Customs Bonded Warehouse, and cleared them on 2-9-1994. The appellant argued that the duty rate should be as of the expiry of the bonding period, whereas the respondent asserted it should be as of the actual removal date from the warehouse. The Tribunal, applying Section 68 of the Customs Act, held that the duty rate applicable in such cases is the one in force on the date of actual removal from the warehouse, not the expiry of the warehousing period.

The Court analyzed the statutory provision under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, which deals with the jurisdiction of the Court to examine questions related to the rate of duty or goods' value for assessment. The appellant contended that the issue was not about the rate of duty but the date of removal from the bonded warehouse. However, considering the facts and the Tribunal's conclusion, the Court determined that the issue indeed primarily concerned the applicable rate of duty. Consequently, the Court held that the remedy available to the appellant was not before them, as the issue fell within the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as per Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act.

Therefore, in light of the statutory provisions, the Court sustained the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and rejected the appeal. The Court concluded that the appeal could not be entertained based on the jurisdictional limitations specified under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.