2015 (12) TMI 64 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) - investigation was conducted by Special Valuation Branch (SVB) - Valuation - Enhancement in value of goods - Inclusion of royalty - CBEC Circular No.1/98-Cus. dt. 1.1.1998 - 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. In the peculiar circumstances of the case where the view of DGOV are considered by all reviewing authorities, we would request DGOV to direct the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi to decide the case expeditiously in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of Revenue. Only after the case is decided by SVB Delhi, will the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva be able to take a view. No additional EDD will be payable by the appellant. Only a PD bond will be required to be submitted by them. This is as per the clear instructions of the Board in Circular No. 11/2001 as well as Mumbai High Court order in the case of E.I. DuPont India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva in hearing appeals against assessment orders passed by Nhava Sheva Customs.
2. Misinterpretation of legal provisions and Circular No. 29/2012 by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Request for expeditious decision by Adjudicating Authority in Delhi.
4. Applicability of additional Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) and requirement of a PD bond.

Analysis:
1. The appeals challenged Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai-II regarding enhanced invoice value for imported goods from a related supplier. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals, stating that jurisdiction lies only with the Commissioner (Appeals) New Delhi as per Circular No. 29/2012. However, the Tribunal held that appeals against assessment orders from Nhava Sheva Customs should be heard by the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva for uniformity, as supported by legal provisions and the circular. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by the appropriate authority.

2. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) misread the law and Circular No. 29/2012. It clarified that the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva is the competent authority to hear appeals against assessment orders from Nhava Sheva Customs. The circular mandates that the work related to appeals should be handled by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication by the correct authority, emphasizing the importance of following legal provisions and circulars for consistency.

3. In a unique situation where the Directorate General of Valuation's views influence reviewing authorities, the Tribunal requested the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi to promptly decide the case. The resolution of the case in Delhi is crucial for the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva to make an informed decision. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of timely decisions for justice and revenue considerations.

4. The Tribunal directed that no additional Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) should be imposed on the appellant, clarifying that only a Provisional Duty (PD) bond is necessary. This directive aligned with Circular No. 11/2001 and a Mumbai High Court order, ensuring compliance with clear instructions. The Tribunal's decision provided relief to the appellant regarding the payment of additional duties, emphasizing adherence to legal guidelines and court orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) Nhava Sheva, emphasized the importance of timely decisions by the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi, and clarified the requirements regarding Extra Duty Deposit and PD bond for the appellant. The detailed analysis addressed jurisdictional issues, misinterpretation of legal provisions, and the necessity for expeditious case resolution, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and directives.