2015 (3) TMI 1143 - AT - Customs

Appropriate authority to hear appeals - Bills of Entry filed at JNCH, Nhava Sheva were assessed after enhancing declared value by 5% in terms of enhancement in value by Special Valuation Branch, New Delhi - Appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva against the assessment orders in respect of the above Bills of Entry but it said that appeal can only be filed before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi - Held that The Commissioner (Appeals) has misread the provisions of law as well as Board Circular No. 29/2012. The legal provisions are very clear. Any appeal against assessment order passed by Customs at JNCH will lie to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva. The Board Circular No. 29/2012, in fact, supports this view and states that the work relating to appeal etc. will continue to be handled by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. For the sake of uniformity, the circular also states that Director General Valuation will provide its views on the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which will be given due consideration when the orders are examined by Commissioner of Customs for review or acceptance of the orders under Section 129D of the Customs Act. Therefore, we hold that Commissioner (Appeals), Nhava Sheva is the appropriate authority to hear the appeals against assessment orders passed by Nhava Sheva, Customs. In the peculiar circumstances of the case where the views of DGOV are considered by all reviewing authorities, we would request DGOV to direct the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi to decide the case expeditiously in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of Revenue. Only after the case is decided by SVB Delhi, will the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva be able to take a view. Payment of EDD - Transactions involving related party investigated by Special Valuation Branch - Held that As per the clear instructions of the Board in Circular No. 11/2001-Cus., dated 23-2-2001 as well as Mumbai High Court order in the case of E.I., DuPont India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT, no additional EDD will be payable by the appellant. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Appeal against assessment orders, jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva, misinterpretation of legal provisions, remand for fresh adjudication, direction to Adjudicating Authority in Delhi, additional EDD payment, PD bond requirement.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against assessment orders: The appeals were directed against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai-II, JNCH, Nhava Sheva. The investigation conducted by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), New Delhi, determined that the declared invoice value for import of raw material and semi-finished goods needed to be enhanced by 5% as per Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The appellant filed appeals against the assessment orders at JNCH, Nhava Sheva.

2. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva: The Commissioner (Appeals) held that all appeals and legal matters arising from cases investigated by SVBs should be handled by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) misread the legal provisions and Board Circular No. 29/2012. It clarified that appeals against assessment orders passed by Customs at JNCH should be heard by the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva, as per the circular and for uniformity.

3. Misinterpretation of legal provisions: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the legal provisions and the circular. It emphasized that the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva is the appropriate authority to hear appeals against assessment orders passed by Nhava Sheva Customs. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva for fresh adjudication.

4. Remand for fresh adjudication: The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva for a new decision after providing the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing. All issues, including the condonation of delay in filing appeals, were kept open for consideration during the fresh adjudication process.

5. Direction to Adjudicating Authority in Delhi: In a unique circumstance where the views of the Directorate General of Valuation (DGOV) are considered by all reviewing authorities, the Tribunal requested DGOV to instruct the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi to expedite the decision process for the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva would only proceed after the case is decided by SVB Delhi.

6. Additional EDD payment and PD bond requirement: The Tribunal directed that no additional Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) would be payable by the appellant. Instead, a Provisional Duty (PD) bond would suffice, in line with the instructions from Circular No. 11/2001 and a Mumbai High Court order in a related case.

7. Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the impugned order back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper decision on merits, requested DGOV to direct SVB in Delhi for an expedited decision, and clarified the appellant's obligation to submit a PD bond instead of paying additional EDD. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with a copy of the order to be sent to DGOV Mumbai for reference.