2017 (8) TMI 1026 - HC - Customs

Interpretation of Statute - Whether in the circumstances of the case the CESTAT s interpretation of the orders appealed against is correct having regard to their expressed terms? - Held that - The error which apparently crept in inadvertently in two orders-in-appeal (of the Commissioner) was that even after recording express findings on substantial issue, a mere setting aside of the penalty was recorded. The CESTAT mindlessly endorsed those opinions in the assessee s appeal. The CESTAT was constituted precisely for the purposes of lightening the burden of the higher judiciary which existed prior to its composition. It cannot view itself mechanically as a body which has an optional jurisdiction or one which chooses not to go into the substantial issue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of orders appealed against regarding the valuation of imported goods and the correctness of CESTAT's decision on the matter.

Analysis:
The case involved the valuation of imported stock lot of synthetic knitted fabric at USD 1.30 per kg, which was disputed by the Revenue. The Assistant Commissioner initially enhanced the valuation to USD 2.5 per kg, leading to a series of orders and remands. The Adjudicating Authority consistently upheld the higher valuation. However, the Commissioner of Customs, in subsequent orders, directed the consideration of the declared value as the transaction value under Section 14 of the Act, setting aside the valuation enhancement. The Customs authorities rejected the refund application by the assessee, claiming that the Commissioner's orders only set aside the penalty, a view upheld by CESTAT.

The High Court scrutinized the records and found that the orders dated 27/28-5-2013 uniformly confirmed the declared value as correct and deemed the valuation enhancement unjustified. It criticized the Commissioner's orders for inaccurately recording findings and merely setting aside the penalty despite clear conclusions on the substantive issue. The Court rebuked CESTAT for mindlessly endorsing these flawed opinions and highlighted the appellate body's duty to thoroughly examine materials and render informed decisions. The Court emphasized that CESTAT should not mechanically dismiss appeals but engage in a comprehensive review to reach sound conclusions. The Court expressed concern over such lapses and urged corrective measures to prevent future oversights.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The judgment underscored the importance of diligent review by appellate bodies like CESTAT and stressed the need for thorough consideration of evidence and submissions to ensure just outcomes.