2019 (6) TMI 1282 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction - Valuation of imported goods - demand of differential amount - HELD THAT - This is clearly a valuation dispute between the parties - This Court has no jurisdiction over the matter. However, we feel that the appellants have proceeded bonafide in a Court not having jurisdiction which may be taken into account for the purpose of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Valuation dispute

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The judgment deals with the jurisdiction of the court to hear appeals involving the valuation of goods. The Court observed that as per a notification by the Department of Commerce, importation of certain goods was made free if the CIF value was above a specified amount. The appellant authorities believed that the importer was required to import goods valued at least at the specified amount. However, the Tribunal held that goods valued below the specified amount did not make them prohibited, and importers could obtain release by paying duty, redemption, fine, and penalty. The Court concluded that the matter is a valuation dispute, and as such, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellants' bonafide actions in approaching the Court without jurisdiction were noted, and they were allowed to seek redressal in another forum.

Valuation Dispute:
The crux of the issue revolves around the valuation of imported goods in relation to the notification specifying a minimum value for duty-free importation. The Tribunal clarified that goods valued below the specified amount did not render them prohibited, allowing importers to secure release by fulfilling certain obligations. The question arose whether the importer was liable to pay the difference between the specified value and the duty paid. The Court highlighted that the matter is essentially a valuation dispute between the parties, emphasizing that the Court lacks jurisdiction over such matters. The distinction between the CIF value declared by the importer and the duty paid was a central point of contention, with the Tribunal's error in using the term "Tariff Value" instead of the transaction value being acknowledged. The judgment underscores that the dispute is centered on the interpretation and application of valuation criteria, which is beyond the purview of the Court's jurisdiction.