2023 (6) TMI 202 - HC - Customs

Seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Sufficient reasons for delay was given or not - appeal was returned as defective - valuation of the goods imported by the respondent from related foreign suppliers - HELD THAT - The impugned order indicates that the learned Tribunal examined the explanation provided by the Revenue and found the delay to be unjustified - Much of the reasons for the delay were attributed to inter-departmental communication. Further, part of the delay was also sought to be explained on the ground that the Revenue had written letters to the Registry of the learned CESTAT attempting to ascertain the status of the appeal. The learned CESTAT, after examining the said letters found, on the basis of the communications dated 23.11.2020 and 17.12.2020, that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Review) had admitted that on verbal enquiries, information was provided that the appeal papers had been returned back to that office by the Registry of the CESTAT - The learned CESTAT held that once the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Review) had become aware that the appeal had been returned back, at least at that stage, he could have taken steps for filing a fresh appeal, however, the appeal was filed much belatedly on 10.02.2022. The learned CESTAT has, accordingly, concluded that there were no justifiable reasons for the delay in filing the appeal after the same was returned as defective. The impugned order is well reasoned and cannot be faulted - no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal deals with the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, exemption application, and the impugning of an order by the Revenue regarding the evaluation of goods imported from related foreign suppliers.

Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal:
The Revenue appealed an Order-in-Appeal before the CESTAT, which was rejected due to defects in filing. Despite receiving Defect Notices, the Revenue failed to rectify the issues promptly. The appeal was re-filed after a delay of four years and nineteen days. The CESTAT found the delay unjustified, attributing it to inter-departmental communication issues and lack of timely action by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The CESTAT concluded that there were no justifiable reasons for the delay and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial questions of law arise.

Evaluation of goods imported from related foreign suppliers:
The controversy revolved around the evaluation of goods imported by the respondent from related foreign suppliers. The Adjudicating Authority found that although the suppliers were related to the respondent, the declared value was not influenced by their relationship. The Authority accepted the declared value as the transaction value under the Valuation Rules, subject to checks and scrutiny. The Revenue appealed this decision, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority and later by the CESTAT. The CESTAT found the Revenue's delay in re-filing the appeal unjustified and dismissed it, stating that the impugned order was well reasoned and no substantial questions of law arose.

Exemption application:
An exemption application was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and the application was disposed of without further details provided in the judgment.