2018 (9) TMI 96 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal - dilution of terms for provisional release - electronic goods - Whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to dilute the security terms for provisional release of goods having regard to the provisions of Section 110A of the Customs Act read with Section 2(1) thereof? Held that - Power for laying down the security terms and conditions has been vested under the Act in the adjudicating authority and the Board or the first and second Appellate Authorities have been specifically excluded from the ambit of the expression adjudicating authority - import of the provisions of Section 110A and 2(1) of the Act would remain confined to laying down the terms at the first instance and the exclusivity of the adjudicating authority to determine that question cannot extend to an appeal proceeding, where the decision of the adjudicating authority can be modified under the aforesaid provision of the statute. Main ground on which this decision is assailed on merit is that it was DRI who had conducted the search and seizure proceeding and without going through their materials on valuation, it was improper on the part of the Tribunal to lay down fresh security terms. We are satisfied that the Tribunal ought to have examined this question in greater detail. Neither the decision of the adjudicating authority nor the Tribunal reflect the manner in which valuation of goods were done, which had its impact in laying security terms. Matter remanded to the Tribunal setting aside the decision under appeal and direct the Tribunal to rehear the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reduce security terms for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act.
2. Appellate Tribunal's authority to modify security terms set by the adjudicating authority.
3. Dispute on valuation of seized goods and its impact on setting security terms.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reduce security terms for provisional release of goods:
The High Court considered the appeal by the Revenue against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to dilute the terms for provisional release of electronic goods seized on mis-declaration allegations. The core issue was whether the Tribunal had the power to reduce the security terms set by the adjudicating authority. The Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to dilute security terms under Section 110A of the Customs Act, distinct from the valuation dispute. The Court held that the Tribunal's authority to reduce security terms was a separate issue from the valuation of goods, thus accepting the appeal on this specific jurisdictional question.

Issue 2: Appellate Tribunal's authority to modify security terms set by the adjudicating authority:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal had the power to confirm, modify, or annul decisions appealed against, including the alteration of security terms. It highlighted that the Tribunal's power to modify security terms constituted a valid exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 129B of the Act. The Court rejected the argument that the Tribunal had overstepped its authority by altering the security terms, asserting that the appeal provision would be rendered ineffective if the Tribunal could not review the security terms set by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 3: Dispute on valuation of seized goods and its impact on setting security terms:
The Court addressed the grievance raised by the assessee regarding the enhancement of the goods' value by the adjudicating authority without providing a basis. It noted that the Tribunal had directed a reduction in the bank guarantee bond, emphasizing the need for evidence on the estimated price per piece before finalizing the appeal. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a rehearing within four weeks to examine the valuation of goods in greater detail. It allowed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to intervene and instructed the Tribunal to reconsider the security terms after hearing all parties involved. The decision under appeal was set aside, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of the valuation process in determining security terms.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the High Court of Calcutta provides a detailed overview of the issues surrounding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the authority to modify security terms, and the impact of the valuation dispute on setting security terms for the provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act.