9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 77 - HC - CustomsLiability to pay CVD on RSP which was changed subsequently after the clearance of goods or on RSP declared at the time of import - HELD THAT - Appellant in its appeal memo before the Tribunal in FORM CA-3 has also stated that the issue involves the valuation of goods for Additional duty of Customs. Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 provides that appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal not being an order relating among other things to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. Since admittedly the issue involved in the present case relates to valuation the present appeal would not lie before this Court. The present appeal is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to demand differential CVD post clearance of imported goods. 2. Sustainment of demand for differential CVD for alteration of retail sale price. 3. Sustainment of demand for extended period and penalty imposition in absence of findings by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. Liability to pay CVD on revised retail sale price post clearance of goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction to demand differential CVD post clearance of imported goods The appellant questioned the respondent's jurisdiction to demand differential Countervailing Duty (CVD) post clearance of imported goods, arguing that once goods are cleared for home consumption, they cease to be "imported goods" as per the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal's order did not address this argument as it was not raised before them. The High Court held that since the appellant failed to raise this issue before the Tribunal and it was not recorded in the Tribunal's order, the High Court could not consider it as arising from the impugned order. Therefore, this issue was not entertained by the High Court. Issue 2: Sustainment of demand for differential CVD for alteration of retail sale price The appellant, an importer of Spray Paints, faced a demand for differential CVD as they had increased the Retail Sale Price (RSP) post customs clearance without paying additional excise duty. The Tribunal upheld the demand, leading to the present appeal. The High Court noted that the only issue was whether CVD should be based on the revised RSP or the declared RSP at the time of import. As this issue related to the valuation of goods for customs duty, the appeal did not fall under the High Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on this ground. Issue 3: Sustainment of demand for extended period and penalty imposition The appellant contested the demand for an extended period and penalty imposition under Sections 28(1) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, citing the absence of findings by the Appellate Tribunal on these aspects. However, the High Court observed that since the appellant did not raise these issues before the Tribunal and they were not recorded in the Tribunal's order, they could not be considered by the High Court. The dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application by the Tribunal further solidified this stance, leading to the rejection of these arguments by the High Court. Issue 4: Liability to pay CVD on revised retail sale price post clearance of goods The core issue revolved around the liability of the appellant to pay CVD on the revised RSP of the goods after clearance, rather than the RSP declared at the time of import. The appellant's appeal memo highlighted this issue as involving the valuation of goods for Additional duty of Customs. However, since this issue pertained to valuation, it did not fall within the purview of appeals to the High Court as per Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on this ground, emphasizing that the issue related to valuation and was not under its jurisdiction. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the issues raised not falling within its jurisdiction, as they primarily pertained to valuation and were not raised or recorded before the Appellate Tribunal, thus precluding their consideration at the High Court level.
|
