9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10-2015 - Harsha Devani and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. Shri G.L. Raval and Dipen Desai, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Y.N. Ravani, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - By this application, the applicant has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the appeal and that the same is required to be filed before the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. Mr. G.L. Raval, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the facts of the case, to submit that the Central Government had issued an exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 25 of the Act which was amended by Notification No. 120/2003, dated 1-8-2003 whereby in public interest, the basic Customs duty came to be reduced from 75% to 65% ad valorem subject to the condition that the imported Crude Palm Oil has acid value of 2% or more and beta carotene value is within the range o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Oil while claiming classification under CTH 1511 10 00 attracting concessional duty at the rate of 65% which duty shall be calculated at tariff value of USD 454, whereas in the subject goods, beta carotene value was less than 500 mg./kg. as stated above and that the same were liable to be classified as Other Palm Oil under CTH 1511 90 90 which attracted basic Customs duty at the rate of 75% which was liable to be calculated at tariff value of USD 471 PMT. It was submitted that therefore, in the present appeal, it has been pleaded that with a view to evade appropriate Customs duty, the applicant has misdeclared the goods which were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. It was submitted that therefore, the appeal involves issues relating amongst other things, to the determination of question having relation to the rate of duty of customs and also to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 130 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court and is required to be filed before the Supreme Court in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the value of goods for the purposes of assessment and the Explanation thereto provides a definition of it for the purposes of this sub-section . The Explanation says that the expression includes the determination of a question relating to the rate of duty; to the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment; to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for. Although this Explanation expressly confines the definition of the said expression to sub-section (5) of Section 129D, it is proper that the said expression used in the other parts of the said Act should be interpreted similarly. The statutory definition accords with the meaning we have, given to the said expression above. Questions relating to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment are questions that squarely fall within the meaning of the said expression. A dispute as to the classification of goods and as to whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification relates di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue involved in this case is as to whether the Tribunal committed an error in the interpretation of the above provisions in allowing the appeal despite the fact that incomplete/incorrect description was given in Import General Manifest (IGM). It was submitted that, therefore, the question involved in the appeal does not relate to the classification of the goods in question, but to the contents of the IGM. Under the circumstances, the question involved in the appeal does not relate to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or value of goods for the purpose of assessment. 3.1 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of S.T., Bangalore v. Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (23) S.T.R. 321 (Kar.) as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 852 (Guj.). It was, accordingly, urged that the application being devoid of merits, deserves to be rejected. 4. Before entering into the merits of the rival submissions, it may be germane to refer to the controversy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is apparent that what is excluded from the jurisdiction of the High Court are orders relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. In the present case, the proceedings right from the inception relate to the question as to whether the imported goods are liable to confiscation and do not relate to any assessment proceedings. Therefore, the basic requirement of the section for the purpose of excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court, namely that the order which is subject matter of appeal should be relating to the rate of duty or value of goods for the purposes of assessment is not satisfied in the present case. 7. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is clear that the controversy before the Tribunal was as to whether the applicant herein had correctly desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
