2018 (12) TMI 1740 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - finalisation of the assessment in respect of the shipping bills - Revenue has preferred the present appeal inter alia, on the ground that assessment done by the original authority based on the price actually payable as per the formula prescribed under the contract is the correct transaction value for the purpose of determination of the duty liability - HELD THAT - The impugned order was reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners and vide order dt. 8.9.2016, the said Committee had taken the view that no appeal shall be filed against the impugned order dt. 31.05.2016. Subsequently, the matter was referred by a newly constituted Committee of Commissioners, who vide Review Order dt. 8.8.2017 have held that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper and accordingly, directed the concerned officer for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the impugned Review Order, no such statutory provisions were mentioned, which empowers the authorities to again review the order, which was already reviewed earlier by the competent authorities. Once, a review committee has taken a decision not to file the appeal before the Tribunal, then in such circumstances, they become functus officio inasmuch as such Committee of Commissioners has no power to review its decision and such a review on re-examination of facts or position of law cannot be allowed. It is evident that the said review order has been passed after 13 months from the date of passing of the impugned order. Insofar as reviewing the order of the appellate Commissioner is concerned, sub-section (3) of Section 129D ibid mandates that the review order shall be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. Proviso clause appended to the said sub-section provides that the Board may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the said period by another thirty days. Time limitation - HELD THAT - On careful reading of the said statutory provisions, it reveals that beyond the period of four months from the date of receipt of the impugned order, the appeal cannot be preferred by Revenue before the Tribunal. Further, no powers have been vested on the Tribunal to condone the delay in passing of the Review order beyond the prescribed time frame. Since Tribunal is a creature under the statute, it has to strictly follow the statutory provisions in entertaining the appeal filed before it - on the ground of limitation also, the appeals filed by Revenue are not maintainable. There are no merits in the appeals filed by Revenue on the ground of maintainability as well as limitation - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the appeals filed by Revenue
- Delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeals:
The Revenue appealed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals-I) regarding the assessment of duty on the export of Metallurgical Gibbsite Bauxite. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had determined the transaction value based on the actual amount received by the respondent, in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Revenue contended that the assessment should be based on the price payable as per the contract formula. The respondent argued that the appeals were not maintainable as a review committee had previously decided not to file appeals against the impugned order. The Tribunal held that once a review committee decides not to file an appeal, it becomes functus officio, and subsequent reviews are impermissible. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support this position. It was concluded that the appeals filed by Revenue were not maintainable on this ground.

2. Delay in Filing the Appeals:
The Tribunal also considered the delay in filing the appeals before them. The review order challenging the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decision was issued 13 months after the original order. The statutory provision under Section 129D(3) mandates that review orders should be made within three months, extendable by another thirty days on sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that beyond four months from the date of the impugned order, appeals cannot be preferred. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that there was no provision for the Tribunal to condone delays in passing review orders beyond the prescribed time frame. As the Tribunal must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, the appeals filed by Revenue were deemed not maintainable due to the delay in filing.

3. Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and legal provisions, found no merit in the appeals filed by Revenue on the grounds of maintainability and limitation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The decision was pronounced in open court, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.