9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods declared by the respondents in the bill of entry - Thus, Section 130 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to any order relating to amongst other things to determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of the custom or to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment. Valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which was relied upon by the appellant does not negate the prohibition of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act. The basis of the entire proceedings is redetermination of the valuation of the imported goods from that declared by the respondents and accepted by the Revenue. Thus, the correct valuation of the imported goods as declared in the bill of entry for the purpose of assessment is an issue that directly arising in this case. Appeal disposed of as not maintainable. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA M.S. SONAK, JJ. Mr. Hitendra Venegaonkar, Special Counsel a/w Ms. Sneha Prabhu for the appellant Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Prakash S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o adopt such a narrow and one-sided interpretation that would render law enforcement dependent on time and chance of detection? Can clearance of goods absolve an offender of the offence and consequent penalty, merely because the offence could not be detected prior to clearance? (d) Whether, despite (i) the 'liability to confiscation' under Section 111 alone sufficing the imposition of the penalty under Section 112; and (ii) Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 not imposing any restriction or limitation as regards the time for intimation of proceedings or issuance of notice was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that the goods cleared for home consumption were beyond the jurisdiction of the Customs Act, 1962, ignoring the overall object and purpose of the Act thereby rendering the customs law enforcement infructuous, more so in the era of self-assessment where the onus of compliance is on the importer? (e) Whether, despite (i) the penalty under Section 114A being imposable only in relation to non-levy or short-levy of duty etc; and (ii) the penalty in relation to goods liable to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that the applicability of the CVR, 2007 was restricted only to such goods as were dutiable? (i) Whether, despite (i) the value of the goods being essential to quantify the penalty under Section 112 and 114AA of the Act; (ii) the provisions of the CVR, 2007 relating to the valuation of imported goods; and (iii) the provisions relating to the liability to confiscation of the goods under Section 111 not being subject to revocation of the assessment of duty or the order permitting clearance for home consumption was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that the scheme for valuation provisions under Customs Act, 1962 could not be resorted to without revoking the assessment? (j) Whether, despite (i) the transaction value of the imported goods, in terms of section 14 of the Act, being the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, where the buyer and seller of the goods were not related and price was the sole consideration for the sale; (ii) R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 130 of the Act to urge that what is excluded from the jurisdiction of this Court is only assessment of goods for the purpose of duty and not assessment of goods for purpose of confiscation of imported goods and / or consequent penalty. It is further submitted that the valuation of the goods being been done in terms of amended Section 14 of the Act. The above Section 14 of the Act entitles the Revenue to value the goods not only for the purpose of assessment to duty but for any other purpose under the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He further place reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (2017) 346 ELT 372. 5. We note that the show-cause notice dated 3rd August, 2016 issued to the respondents which forms the basis in the present proceedings, called upon the respondents to show-cause as under : (a) The declared CIF value as detailed in Column (4) of 'Table14' above, of the goods under the Bills of Entry as detailed in Column (3) of the said 'Table-14', and the quality parameters depicted in Column (4) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of assessment, then, the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted. Accordingly to Mr. Venegaokar, this is a case of confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) as the value of the imported goods was not properly declared, will not detract from the fact that one of the question which arise in the appeal is with regard to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment. Moreover, in any event, before the Revenue confirms and uphold the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(m) of the Act, redetermination of the value of the goods would be the fundamental issue to be decided, as is evident from the show-cause notice. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, which was relied upon by the appellant does not negate the prohibition of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 130 of the Act. The basis of the entire proceedings is redetermination of the valuation of the imported goods from that declared by the respondents and accepted by the Revenue. Thus, the correct valuation of the imported goods as declared in the bill of entry for the purpose of assessment is an issue that directly arising in this case. 7. Reliance placed by the Revenue upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
