9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 278 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of fixing the value of imported goods - main grievance of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs is not the proper officer for fixing/assessing the value of the imported goods - Held that - the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is also a proper officer of Customs for the purposes of valuation of imported goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Proper valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 2. Authority of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in assessing the value of imported goods. 3. Requirement of remanding the case back to the original adjudicating authority. 4. Legality of setting aside the Order in Appeal No.Kol/cus/CKP/612/2009. 5. Any other order deemed fit by the Tribunal. Issue 1: Proper valuation of imported goods under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, regarding the valuation of a Motor Tug Boat imported by the respondent. The Customs Authorities questioned the declared value and requested a Valuation Certificate. The Adjudicating Authority found discrepancies in the declared value compared to previous imports of similar goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed valuation based on a report by a Government approved Chartered Engineer, as the transaction value was not acceptable due to the nature of old and used goods. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for valuation by a chartered engineer for old and used goods, as per established legal principles and Tribunal decisions. Issue 2: Authority of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in assessing the value of imported goods: The main contention raised by the Revenue was that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not the proper officer for fixing the value of imported goods. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to assess the value in this case. The Commissioner's detailed and reasoned order explained the necessity of valuation by a Government approved Chartered Engineer for old and used goods, as traditional valuation methods were not applicable. The Tribunal agreed with this approach, highlighting that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) indeed had the jurisdiction to determine the value of the imported goods in question. Issue 3: Requirement of remanding the case back to the original adjudicating authority: The Revenue raised a concern about the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) not remanding the case back to the original adjudicating authority for a reasoned order on valuation. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was detailed and well-founded, providing a thorough explanation for the valuation method adopted. As the Commissioner's decision was legally sound and based on established principles, the Tribunal did not see a need for remanding the case back to the original authority for further assessment. Issue 4: Legality of setting aside the Order in Appeal No.Kol/cus/CKP/612/2009: The Tribunal addressed the specific points raised by the Revenue regarding the legality of setting aside the lower adjudicating authority's order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the adjudication order and directed valuation based on the report of a Government approved Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal found this decision to be legally correct, as it aligned with the established principles for valuing old and used goods, especially in cases where the transaction value was not acceptable. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against setting aside the earlier order. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order regarding the valuation of the imported Motor Tug Boat. The decision emphasized the need for valuation by a Government approved Chartered Engineer for old and used goods, highlighting the legal correctness of the Commissioner's actions and the authority vested in them for assessing the value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
|
