9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2635 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the appeal and that the same is required to be filed before the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Section 130E of the CA, 1962 - whether the present case falls within the ambit of Section 130 of the Act or not? - Held that - none of the findings touch any issue relating to the determination of the rate of duty or value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The entire controversy relates only to the description of the goods in the IGM in connection with the question as to whether such goods are liable to confiscation. None of the issues decided by the Tribunal are in the context of determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. Under the circumstances, the appeal squarely falls within the ambit of Section 130 of the Act and has, therefore, rightly been filed before this Court. Application rejected - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal. 2. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act. 3. Applicability of exemption notifications to the imported goods. 4. Liability of goods to confiscation under Sections 111(f) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. 5. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Customs Act in relation to the determination of the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment purposes. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The applicant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which should be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant contended that the appeal involved issues related to the determination of the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. 2. Classification of Imported Goods: The central issue was whether the imported Crude Palm Oil (CPO) met the criteria for concessional duty under Chapter Heading 1511 10 00, attracting a 65% duty rate, or should be classified under Chapter Heading 1511 90 90, attracting a 75% duty rate. The Revenue argued that the goods were misdeclared as CPO with a beta carotene value less than 500 mg./kg, classifying them as "Other Palm Oil" under CTH 1511 90 90. 3. Applicability of Exemption Notifications: The applicant claimed that the imported CPO satisfied the conditions of exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 120/2003, which reduced the basic Customs duty from 75% to 65% for CPO with specific acid and beta carotene values. The Revenue countered that the goods did not meet these conditions and were misdeclared to evade appropriate Customs duty. 4. Liability of Goods to Confiscation: The adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods under Sections 111(f) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, imposing redemption fines and penalties. The Tribunal, however, held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) as the Import General Manifest (IGM) did not require precise description. The controversy revolved around whether the goods were correctly described in the IGM and if they were liable to confiscation. 5. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Customs Act: The High Court examined whether the appeal involved the determination of questions related to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, which would exclude its jurisdiction under Section 130. The Court found that the proceedings primarily concerned the liability of the goods to confiscation and not assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the appeal was maintainable as it did not primarily relate to the determination of the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment but rather to the description and liability of the goods to confiscation. The Court rejected the applicant's preliminary objection and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 for filing a frivolous application, emphasizing the waste of judicial time.
|
