2015 (8) TMI 1297 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) - Valuation - related parties - Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - inclusion of expenditure of royalty amount, technical know how fee and licence fee on account of the goods manufactured in India to the value of goods imported. - Held that - According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no show cause notice as well as personal hearing was given. Hence, this Court is of the view that on violation of principles of natural justice, the order is to be defended before the appellate authority only, on merits. - the petitioner is permitted to represent the appeal papers before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 03.02.2014 regarding the valuation of imported goods, dismissal of appeal as time-barred, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing car accessories using components imported from foreign suppliers, challenged an order that directed the addition of amounts paid for LOGOs, royalty, etc., to the invoice value during assessment. The petitioner contended that it was related to the foreign suppliers and argued against the imposition of extra duty based on royalty payments. The High Court observed that the impugned order was passed solely on grounds of delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the petitioner claimed inadequate opportunity to defend its case before the authority, citing a lack of show cause notice and personal hearing. The Court held that the matter should be considered by the appellate authority on its merits, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in such proceedings.

2. Dismissal of Appeal as Time-Barred:
The impugned order dismissing the petitioner's appeal was based on the delay in filing it, as per the provisions of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which required appeals to be lodged within 60 days from the date of communication of the order, extendable by a further 30 days. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 129A(1)(b) of the Customs Act and should have exhausted it before resorting to a writ petition. The High Court, however, allowed the petitioner to represent the appeal papers before the appellate authority within two weeks, stressing the need for the appellate authority to consider the case on its merits and in accordance with the law promptly.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of adequate opportunity to present its case before the authority, highlighting the absence of a show cause notice and personal hearing. The Court acknowledged the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and directed that the matter be reviewed by the appellate authority considering the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and the right to defend one's case before reaching a decision on the valuation of imported goods, underscoring the significance of procedural fairness in such matters.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the appellate authority within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issues raised on their merits and ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for expeditious consideration of the appeal in accordance with the law.