2015 (3) TMI 902 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Section 130 - Whether relaxation or exemption on the proper date for determination of the rate of duty is permissible when there is no provision under Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - held that - question that has to be determined in this appeal has a direct bearing in relation to the rate of Special Additional Duty on the goods imported and that there is a bar under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act - Tribunal in this case has come to the conclusion that in terms of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, the rate of Special Additional Duty will not be payable by the assessee. That issue, we find, cannot be agitated before this Court in view of the specific provision under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the first respondent is sustained. - appeal is not maintainable - Following decision of Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs-Collector of Customs 1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal maintainability under Section 130 of the Customs Act.
2. Determination of the rate of Special Additional Duty.
3. Interpretation of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act.
4. Application of the decision in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs.

Issue 1: Appeal Maintainability under Section 130 of the Customs Act:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against a Tribunal order allowing the assessee's appeal. The primary objection raised was regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, as it pertained to the rate of Special Additional Duty payable. The Tribunal concluded that the Special Additional Duty was not payable due to circumstances beyond the importer's control. However, the first respondent argued that this issue directly related to the rate of duty and was barred under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Determination of the Rate of Special Additional Duty:
The goods in question arrived at the port on 20.5.1998, but the entry was granted on midnight of 01/2.06.1998, making them chargeable to duty as of the entry date. A new levy of Special Additional Duty at 8% was imposed under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal ruled that the importer was not liable to pay the Special Additional Duty due to circumstances beyond their control, leading to the refund claim being upheld.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 15(1) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal's decision was based on Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, which influenced the determination that the Special Additional Duty was not payable by the assessee. However, it was noted that this specific issue could not be challenged before the High Court due to the provision under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, which restricts appeals related to questions concerning the rate of duty.

Issue 4: Application of the Decision in Navin Chemicals Case:
The judgment cited the decision in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, where the Supreme Court clarified the definition of questions relating to the rate of duty or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The Court emphasized that disputes regarding the rate of duty, goods' valuation, classification, or exemption notifications directly impact the assessment process. The test for determining appeal jurisdiction was whether the question at hand had a direct and proximate relation to the rate of duty or the value of the goods.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing that the matter should be pursued before the appropriate forum. The judgment highlighted the importance of understanding the limitations on appeal jurisdiction under the Customs Act and the relevance of specific provisions in determining the applicability of duties and exemptions.