2015 (8) TMI 779 - HC - Customs

Extended period of Limitation Payment of differential duty Respondent while invoking extended period of limitation issued show cause notice alleging under-valuation of car and payment of differential duty Vide impugned order CESTAT order payment of differential duty Held that - declared value at which car was imported and upon which duty was paid by appellant was 64,700 Report of independent chartered engineer, indicated value of car at 63,000, prima facie appears to be based on application of different price matrix Considering circumstances, extended limitation period on ground of mis-declaration assuming that appellant did indulge in such activity, may not be alleged by Revenue Having regard to such circumstances, in interest of justice direction contained in impugned order requires to be partially modified Differential duty reduced Decided in partly in favour of Appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Whether the direction to pay &8377; 55 lakhs by the CESTAT was justified as a principal condition for the hearing of the appeal.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked by the Customs authorities.
3. Whether the valuation of the imported car at &8377; 64 lakhs by the Commissioner of Customs was justified.
4. Whether the direction contained in the impugned order by CESTAT required modification.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the direction to pay &8377; 55 lakhs by the CESTAT as a condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant imported a car from Dubai, which was seized by customs authorities for non-production of typed certificates. The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked as the car had already been subject to adjudication proceedings. The appellant also challenged the valuation of the car at &8377; 64 lakhs, claiming it was baseless. The Court, after considering submissions, modified the direction, requiring the appellant to pre-deposit &8377; 10 lakhs instead of &8377; 55 lakhs for the appeal to be heard.

2. The Customs authorities sought to invoke the extended period of limitation on the ground of mis-declaration regarding the valuation of the imported car. The appellant argued that the Customs Department could not invoke the extended period at the end of the limitation period, especially when the car had already gone through adjudication proceedings. The Court, after reviewing the facts and submissions, opined that the extended limitation period on the ground of mis-declaration may not be valid, considering the circumstances of the case.

3. The Commissioner of Customs had determined the valuation of the imported car at &8377; 64 lakhs. The appellant challenged this valuation, presenting evidence that the declared value of the car was $ 64,700, while an independent chartered engineer estimated the fair value at $ 63,000. The Court found that the valuation by the Commissioner appeared to be based on a different price matrix. Considering the evidence and submissions, the Court concluded that the valuation of &8377; 64 lakhs was not justified, leading to the modification of the direction for pre-deposit by the appellant.

4. The direction contained in the impugned order by CESTAT, requiring the appellant to pay &8377; 55 lakhs, was challenged as harsh. After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Court decided to partially modify the direction. Instead of paying &8377; 55 lakhs, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit &8377; 10 lakhs for the appeal to be heard. This modification was deemed necessary in the interest of justice, allowing the appeal to proceed in accordance with the law after compliance with the revised pre-deposit amount.

← Previous Next →