2017 (7) TMI 122 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - case of Revenue is that since, the issue, at hand, would effect the value of the goods, for the purpose of assessment, the Writ Petitioner ought to file an appeal before the Supreme Court - Held that - Qua the issue, as to whether, the remand directions go beyond the scope of appeal, we can only say that, since, there is an appeal remedy available, this is an aspect, which can be agitated in the appeal, if any, filed by the Writ Petitioner. These are not matters, which go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, being an authority, which is empowered to deal with the issues, of both, fact and law, the error, if any, can be corrected by way of an appeal remedy. Appeal dismissed, being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Impact of investigation proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the issue at hand.
3. Valuation of imported goods and the relationship between the importer and the foreign supplier.
4. Validity and conditions of review orders passed by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB).
5. Interpretation of Intellectual Property Agreement (IP) and its impact on the transaction value of goods.
6. Scope of appeal and remand directions issued by the Tribunal.
7. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the authority to decide on matters of law and fact.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition: The Writ Petition was challenged on the grounds of maintainability under Section 130-E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it could affect the valuation of goods for assessment purposes, suggesting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Impact of DRI Investigation: The Tribunal directed consideration of the DRI investigation outcomes while examining the issue, raising concerns about parallel proceedings initiated by DRI related to the same transaction.

3. Valuation of Imported Goods: Disputes arose regarding the valuation of imported goods, including raw materials and finished products, leading to investigations by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) since 1991, with review orders issued periodically.

4. Validity of Review Orders: The review orders by SVB were valid for specific periods and accepted declared invoice values as "transaction value" under the Custom Valuation Rules, with conditions stipulating the treatment of instances of suppression or misdeclaration.

5. Interpretation of IP Agreement: Changes in the Intellectual Property Agreement and the payment of royalties to the holding company were scrutinized for their impact on the transaction value of goods under the Custom Valuation Rules.

6. Scope of Appeal and Remand Directions: The scope of appeal was questioned concerning the remand directions issued by the Tribunal, with arguments on whether the directions exceeded the appeal's scope.

7. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The judgment emphasized the authority of the Tribunal to decide on matters of law and fact, with errors to be corrected through the appeal process, citing relevant legal principles.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, providing insights into the complexities of the case and the legal principles applied by the Court.