2022 (3) TMI 921 - AT - Customs

Seeking restoration of the stay application - valuation of imported goods - foreign supplier being related company - correctness of the declared value - HELD THAT - The appellant submits that valuation of the goods as done by the SVB should be stayed during pendency of the appeal. On the early date of hearing, Ld. Counsel had submitted that he does not wish to proceed with stay application as the early hearing of the appeal had been allowed. Thus the stay requested for in the present application is not from recovery of the demand but for stay of valuation and collection of duty for clearing the goods. Such a prayer cannot be allowed by the Tribunal. The EH application having been allowed by the Tribunal, the appellant can get relief for the earliest disposal of the appeal. There are no grounds for grant of stay as sought for in the application. The stay application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of stay application for valuation and duty collection during the pendency of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for restoration of a stay application that was disposed of on 30.01.2020. The appellant had initially submitted that they were not pressing the stay application as the early hearing application was allowed by the Tribunal.

2. The case involved the valuation of goods imported by the appellant from related foreign suppliers. The Special Valuation Branch (SVB) examined the declared values of the goods, and based on their findings, determined the transaction value in accordance with Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 for different import periods.

3. Subsequent imports by the appellant from different countries were also subject to valuation scrutiny by the SVB, leading to specific orders determining the transaction values for those imports.

4. A related company of the appellant was also involved in importing goods, which underwent valuation assessment by the SVB. The Deputy Commissioner (SVB) issued an order accepting the declared transaction value, subject to certain exclusions and inclusions based on the balance sheet details.

5. A subsequent appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the Deputy Commissioner's order, resulting in the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order and directing a review of the valuation issue, along with an order to collect additional duty.

6. The Tribunal, in a final order, reduced the additional duty rate from 5% to 1% of the value of goods. Following this, a fresh order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner incorporating the royalty amount into the invoice value, which was challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.

7. The appellant, during the pendency of the appeal, faced a situation where the proper officer demanded payment of a differential amount based on an Order-in-Appeal dated 25.04.2019. To clear the goods urgently, the appellant had to provide a bank guarantee for the differential duty amount.

8. In the current application, the appellant sought a stay on the loading of the value as per the Order-in-Appeal to avoid immediate payment, which was opposed by the Authorized Representative, arguing that the appellant had already waived their right to seek a stay by not pressing the initial stay application.

9. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, rejected the restoration of the stay application. The Tribunal emphasized that the earlier decision to not press the stay application, coupled with the allowance of the early hearing application, did not warrant a further stay on valuation and duty collection during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application accordingly.