9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 956 - HC - CustomsRecovery proceedings while appeal in pending in the absence of any Stay order - Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - price declared was comparable to the value derived from NIDB or not - Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT - It is evident that the appellant has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, as against the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) in Order in Appeal SEA.C.Cus II No.338/2019. Pending appeal, the appellant filed two applications, one for grant of interim stay and another for fixing a date for final hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal fixed 11.03.2020 as the date for final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the appellant withdrew the application for grant of interim stay. However, it is stated that due to want of coram and prevalence of Covid-19 Pandemic situation, the appeal could not be taken up for hearing on the date fixed by the Tribunal. The appellant has filed the instant application for restoration of the application for interim stay by stating that the department is attempting to implement the order-in-original (denovo) No.64397/2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which was confirmed by the first appellate authority on 25.04.2019, notwithstanding the fact that the order dated 25.04.2019 is the subject matter of appeal pending before the Tribunal. The application for restoration of the stay application filed by the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on 24.01.2022, which has prompted the appellant to approach this Court with this appeal. It is evident that the appeal filed by the appellant is pending for quite some time and during the pendency of the appeal, it is contended that the Department is seeking to implement the order passed by the original authority. It is also seen that the appellant withdrew the application for interim stay when the Tribunal fixed a date for final hearing of the appeal - The respondent shall not make any recovery from the appellant till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the Order dated 24.01.2022 made in Miscellaneous Order No.40002/2022 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal. 3. Application for restoration of the stay application dismissed by the Tribunal. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the Order dated 24.01.2022 The appellant challenged the Order dated 24.01.2022 made by the Tribunal, seeking to set aside the decision in Customs Appeal No. 41133 of 2019-DB. The appellant imported excavator machine tools, spare parts, and accessories from a related company, M/s. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., South Korea. The Special Valuation Branch examined the declared value, concluding it was in line with contemporaneous imports by unrelated buyers. Various payments made were scrutinized, and adjustments were made to the declared value by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (SVB). Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to stay the operation of the impugned order-in-appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had the power under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to stay the operation of the order to secure the ends of justice. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's dismissal of the application for restoration of the stay application was unjust, given the circumstances surrounding the delay in the final hearing of the appeal. Issue 3: Restoration of the Stay Application The appellant filed an application for restoration of the stay application after the Tribunal dismissed it. The appellant highlighted the delay in the final hearing of the appeal due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Department's attempts to implement the order despite the pending appeal. The Tribunal's rejection of the restoration application led the appellant to appeal to the High Court seeking relief and restoration of the stay application. In conclusion, the High Court directed that no recovery should be made from the appellant until the appeal pending before the Tribunal is disposed of. The Court left the questions of law raised in the appeal open for separate proceedings. Additionally, the Tribunal was instructed to expedite the disposal of the appeal relating to the collection of extra duty deposit within four months. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and the connected applications were closed.
|
