9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1187 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Assessment made by the department on enhanced value set aside - rejection of declared value - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - For reduction of litigation, the CBIC has issued circulars/instructions from time to time instructing the department not to file the appeal and in some cases, if it has already filed, not to press the appeal before higher authorities i.e. the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the case may be, where the duty amount involved is below the minimum threshold limits respectively prescribed in such circulars. In the present cases, we are concerned with the CBIC s latest circular dated 02.11.2023, wherein it has been specifically prescribed that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs and if already filed, will have to be withdrawn. In so far as, the CESTAT is concerned the monetary limit prescribed is Rs.50 lakhs. Para 3 of the said circular prescribes that in respect of the pending cases before the CESTAT, the High Courts and the Supreme Court which are below the monetary limits, process of withdrawal of the appeal would be undertaken by the department. It is pertinent to mention here that the amount of duty involved in the appeal is below of the threshold limit prescribed in circular dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it is provided that if the duty amount involved is less than Rs.50 lakhs, then no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT, and if already filed, the same will be withdrawn by the department. Reference made to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, SERVICE TAX, NASHIK II COMMISSIONERATE, VERSUS M/S. SUVARNA SANJIVANI SUGARCANE 2017 (6) TMI 858 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed ' There is no issue that the appeals filed by the department in the year 2 012 having monitory limits of below 15/20 lakhs. The above provisions and instructions/circulars therefore covers the case of disposal of these appeals on the same ground. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for such disposal.' The present appeal filed by the department is not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Board and consequently dismissed - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment based on enhanced value. 2. Requirement of a Speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Onus of proof regarding declared value. 4. Applicability of monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBIC instructions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessment Based on Enhanced Value: The primary issue in the appeal was the validity of the assessment made by the department on the enhanced value of imported "Dry Dates" as per the acceptance/admission by the importer. The declared value of USD 0.25/Kg was found inadequate by the Assessing Officer when compared to contemporaneous import data. The importer, in response to a query, requested the Assessing Officer to enhance the value to USD 0.35/Kg, which was based on their previous Bill of Entry. The Assessing Officer enhanced the value accordingly, and the importer paid the duty without protest at that stage. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this assessment, noting that the reasons for rejecting the declared value were not provided, and the enhanced value was accepted by the importer under duress to avoid detention and demurrage charges. 2. Requirement of a Speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that no Speaking Order was passed as required under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates that reasons for rejecting a declared value must be documented. The importer had requested a Speaking Order after paying the duty under protest, but no such order was issued. This procedural lapse was a significant ground for setting aside the assessment. 3. Onus of Proof Regarding Declared Value: The Appellate Authority emphasized that it is a judicially settled principle that the onus to prove that the declared price does not reflect the true transaction value lies with the department. The declared value can be rejected only on the basis of reasonable and cogent evidence. The department failed to provide details of contemporaneous imports or any substantial evidence to justify the enhanced value, thus failing to discharge its burden of proof. 4. Applicability of Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals as per CBIC Instructions: The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, citing the CBIC's instructions that prohibit filing appeals below a stipulated monetary threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs. The duty differential in question was Rs. 22,53,057/-, which is below the threshold. The CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, issued under Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962, prescribe that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT for amounts below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal noted that the instructions are binding on the department and have been consistently upheld by various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, to reduce litigation involving meager amounts of revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department, holding that it was not maintainable due to the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBIC's instructions. The Tribunal also noted the procedural lapses in the assessment process, including the lack of a Speaking Order and the failure of the department to provide substantial evidence to reject the declared value. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the question of law open.
|
