2021 (8) TMI 1070 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment - Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - In view of Section 130 of the Customs Act, no appeal lies before the High Court in respect of any question having relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. However, an appeal will lie before the Supreme Court on such issues, more specifically, under sub section (b) to Section 130E of the Act. This being the legal position, the writ petition filed before this Court is not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal; Maintainability of writ petition under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962; Appeal jurisdiction of High Court vs. Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ challenging an order by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. The court noted that the writ petition is not maintainable as per Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 130(1) specifies that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal after July 1, 2003, except those related to the rate of duty of customs or the value of goods for assessment if the case involves a substantial question of law. Therefore, appeals on issues concerning the rate of duty or value of goods do not lie before the High Court.

Regarding appeals on matters related to the rate of duty or value of goods, Section 130E of the Customs Act provides for appeals to the Supreme Court. The judgment highlights that under Section 130E(b), orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal before the establishment of the National Tax Tribunal concerning questions on the rate of duty or value of goods fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court does not have jurisdiction over such issues, and parties must approach the Supreme Court for redressal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner can seek appropriate redressal by approaching the relevant court. The judgment clarifies the distinction between the appeal jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court under the Customs Act, guiding parties on the proper forum for addressing specific issues. No costs were awarded in this matter.