2017 (1) TMI 1063 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of first appellate authority - Scope of SCN - expunging sought of the observation of the first appellate authority only on the ground that the said observation have traversed beyond show-cause notice and the question of mis-declaration was not alleged as the Bills of Entries were provisionally assessed - Held that - first appellate authority has relied upon the certificate issued by the supplier of the goods to come to a conclusion that the charge of mis-declaration as confirmed by adjudicating authority does not arise - the first appellate authority was within his jurisdiction to pass an order on the allegations regarding mis-declaration by suppressing the facts and willful mis-statement. No merits found in the appeal filed by Revenue as they have not contraverted the findings of the first appellate authority by any evidence but only are seeking to expunge these observations on the ground that they were travelling beyond show-cause notice - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revenue's appeal seeking to expunge the observation of mis-declaration by the first appellate authority.
2. Classification of imported goods in favor of Revenue.
3. Allegation of mis-declaration by the importer.
4. Jurisdiction of the first appellate authority in deciding on allegations of mis-declaration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by Revenue was against an order-in-appeal dated 06.10.2005, seeking to expunge the observation of mis-declaration by the first appellate authority. The Revenue contended that the observation went beyond the show-cause notice and was not alleged as the Bills of Entries were provisionally assessed. The first appellate authority had held the classification of the imported goods in favor of Revenue.

2. The first appellate authority had recorded that the importer had mis-declared the description of the goods, which the adjudicating authority had also mentioned in the order-in-original. The importer contested this charge of mis-declaration before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority relied on a certificate issued by the supplier of the goods to conclude that the charge of mis-declaration did not hold. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority was within its jurisdiction to decide on the allegations of mis-declaration and upheld the order based on the evidence presented.

3. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority's decision was reasoned and correct, and there was no evidence presented by the Revenue to contradict the findings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal did not see any need to interfere with the first appellate authority's order. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to address the issue of mis-declaration by the importer.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, including the appeal by Revenue, the classification of imported goods, the allegation of mis-declaration, and the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority in deciding on such matters.