2014 (4) TMI 832 - HC - Customs

Validity of Assistant Commissioner order - Genuineness of the transaction value - Alternate Remedy - Procedure for appeals - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 Held that - The impugned order is appealable - An assessment has to be finalised after considering provisions of the Act and the Rules - Norms issued by a department, as rightly asserted by counsel for the revenue, are merely guidelines - A guideline whether styled as a norm or an instruction, is framed for guidance and, therefore, cannot replace statutory provisions - The necessity to issue guidelines and instructions arises from the extremely complicated taxation regime which more often than not is incomprehensible even to experts - Norms, guidelines and directions cannot replace provisions of the statute or the Rules - Impugned order is admittedly appealable - The petitioner is relegated to the remedy of filing the appeal Decided in favour of Appellants.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging customs order violation of Customs Act and Rules, application of norms without discretion, appeal procedure under Customs Act, consideration of genuineness of transaction value, mechanical application of norms, guidelines as mere guidance, appealability of impugned order, remedy of filing appeal, condonation of appeal delay.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a customs order, alleging a violation of the Customs Act and Rules, primarily due to the application of norms without discretion. The petitioner argued that the norms were applied mechanically without considering the genuineness of the transaction value, citing a previous judgment that emphasized the importance of genuine transaction value assessment. On the other hand, the revenue's counsel contended that the Act provides a complete code with a prescribed appeal procedure, suggesting that the writ petition should be dismissed for not exhausting appeal remedies. The revenue argued that the norms were guidelines for officers and were not applied mechanically in the impugned order. The court noted that the impugned order was appealable and acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding the mechanical application of norms without considering transaction value genuineness.

The court emphasized that assessments must consider the provisions of the Act and Rules, highlighting that norms or guidelines issued by departments are for guidance and cannot replace statutory provisions. Acknowledging the complexity of the taxation regime, the court clarified that guidelines cannot supersede statutory provisions. The court reiterated that the impugned order was appealable, directing the petitioner to pursue the remedy of filing an appeal. Additionally, the court mentioned that if the appeal faced a limitation issue, the application for condonation of delay would be sympathetically considered, ensuring a decision on the appeal's merits within 15 days of filing the condonation application.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, emphasizing the appealability of the impugned order and instructing the petitioner to follow the proper appeal procedure. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering statutory provisions in assessments, clarifying the role of guidelines as supplementary to, not a replacement for, legal requirements.