2023 (5) TMI 678 - HC - Customs

Place of origin of goods - it is claimed that the goods are originated from Mizoram, inside the country - petitioner claimed to be the first purchaser of the goods inside the country - HELD THAT - This being a dispute arising under fiscal statute involving questions of fact as to whether goods had been imported from outside the country or had originated within the country and whether they had been correctly described in the invoice document or not, those issues would require fact enquiries to be made and evidence to be appreciated before any firm conclusion may be reached. Further, in face of the petitioner having availed two statutory remedies, there are no justification for the petitioners now to avoid filing of second appeal before the Tribunal and seek adjudication in the writ proceedings, instead. At the same time, the writ petition was filed in the month of March, 2023 and the same is pending before this Court. It is considered appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file statutory appeal before the Tribunal. If such appeal is filed within two weeks from today in accordance with law, the Tribunal may treat the same to have been filed within time and proceed on merits and decide the same in accordance with law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to jurisdiction of the order dated 21.03.2023 regarding the origin of goods and misdescription leading to proceedings under GST laws.

Summary:

Issue 1: Challenge to jurisdiction
The petitioners argued that the goods originated in the domestic tariff area, specifically from Mizoram within the country, supported by a certificate from Mizoram authorities. They claimed no role in the transaction and were unnecessarily harassed. On the contrary, the revenue department contended that the invoice declaration was false, leading to proceedings against the petitioners as different goods were found during transportation. The Adjudication Order was passed and appealed against, with the appeal dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioners were advised to file a second appeal before the Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating that the dispute involved questions of fact regarding the origin of goods and their description in the invoice. The court noted that fact-finding and evidence appreciation were necessary before reaching a conclusion. Since the petitioners had already availed two statutory remedies, they were directed to file a second appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks. The court emphasized that the right of appeal is statutory and may be subject to conditions like pre-deposit, which the assessee must comply with to avail the remedy.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal within the specified timeframe. The court highlighted that compliance with appeal conditions, including pre-deposit, is essential for availing the statutory right of appeal.