2015 (6) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Enhancement of value by 5% - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has misread the provisions of law as well as Board Circular No. 29/2012. The legal provisions are very clear. Any appeal against assessment order passed by Customs at JNCH will lie to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva. The Board Circular No. 29/2012, in fact, supports this view and states that the work relating to appeal etc. will continue to be handled by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. For the sake of uniformity, the circular also states that Director General Valuation will provide its views on the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, which will be given due consideration when the orders are examined by Commissioner of Customs for review or acceptance of the orders under Section 129D of the Customs Act. Therefore, we hold that Commissioner (Appeals), Nhava Sheva is the appropriate authority to hear the appeals against assessment orders passed by Nhava Sheva, Customs. - no additional EDD will be payable by the appellant. Only a PD bond will be required to be submitted by them. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) in Customs cases.
2. Enhancement of declared value by Special Valuation Branch.
3. Applicability of Circulars issued by CBEC.
4. Dispute regarding jurisdiction between Delhi and Mumbai Customs authorities.
5. Requirement of additional duty deposit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioners of Customs regarding the enhancement of declared value for imported goods by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). The issue of jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Customs cases was central to the dispute.

2. The investigation by SVB determined that the declared invoice value for imports needed to be enhanced by 5%. Circulars issued by CBEC regarding the functioning of SVBs and the handling of legal matters by Customs authorities were cited as relevant legal provisions in the case.

3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) in Nhava Sheva, Mumbai, was the appropriate authority to hear appeals against assessment orders passed by Customs at Nhava Sheva. The decision was based on the clear legal provisions and Circular No. 29/2012 issued by the CBEC.

4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for uniformity in decision-making and directed that cases originating from Delhi SVB should be decided by Delhi Customs authorities before decisions were implemented in Mumbai/Nhava Sheva. This was to avoid multiple litigations at different levels.

5. Regarding the requirement of additional duty deposit, the Tribunal ruled that no extra duty deposit would be payable by the appellant, and only a PD bond would be required, in line with Circular No. 11/2001 and a Mumbai High Court Order.

6. The Tribunal remanded the impugned orders back to the original adjudicating authority for a decision after the case was decided by Delhi DC (SVB) and directed DGOV to expedite the pending case in Delhi for the benefit of all Customs Commissioners. The appellant was relieved from paying the additional duty deposit.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues addressed by the Tribunal and the reasoning behind its decision on each issue raised in the case.