2018 (9) TMI 134 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - hot rolled stainless steel - hot rolled stainless steel plates - enhancement of value set aside based on the inadequacy of the evidence - Held that - It is evident that the dispute in bill of entry no. 786750/1.12.2009 is below the threshold prescribed for filing the appeal by Revenue. Considering the enhancement apparent in this bill of entry and its combined disposal by the first appellate authority, as well as authority competent to review the order of the first appellate authority, it would appear that the disputed amount in the second bill of entry is also not of a greater magnitude. Also, both the disputed amounts forming part of the single appeal were separately and severally less than the threshold. The appeal of Revenue dismissed for being not in accordance with the new litigation policy.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-appeal regarding enhanced assessable value of imported goods.
2. Dispute over duty liability below prescribed threshold.
3. Incomplete appeal submission by Revenue.
4. Lack of diligence in presenting records before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI was filed by Revenue against the order-in-appeal issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the enhanced assessable value of imported goods in two bills of entry. The assessing authority had increased the assessable value from the declared amount, leading to a dispute. The first appellate authority had set aside the enhancement due to inadequacy of evidence for seeking recovery of differential duty.

2. Upon perusal of the appeals, it was found that the duty liability dispute was for amounts below the threshold specified in the new litigation policy. The enhanced value in one bill of entry was below the prescribed threshold for agitation by Revenue. The enhancement made by the original authority was less than 10% of the declared value in both bills of entry.

3. The appeal by Revenue was deemed incomplete as the second bill of entry was not enclosed with the appeal papers, and the order-in-review was also not provided. This incomplete submission raised procedural issues regarding the completeness of the appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal noted the lack of diligence on the part of Revenue in presenting records and segregating appeals based on the new threshold in the litigation policy. The failure to separate appeals involving amounts above and below the threshold led to the assumption that both disputed amounts in the single appeal were individually below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue for not complying with the new litigation policy.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted procedural shortcomings in the appeal submission by Revenue, emphasizing the importance of diligence and compliance with the prescribed thresholds in litigation policies.