9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or order issued under the statute and that they are an arraigned party having a legal grievance , that they satisfy the criteria stated in the above judgment, inasmuch as the IR has wrongly deprived them of something, or wrongly refused them something, or wrongfully affected their title to something. Hence they cannot be stated. The appellant has also not demonstrated any real prejudice caused to them by the investigation report. Merely being disappointed or dissatisfied is not enough. Further the IR is the product of a consultative process between the department and the appellant as the facts are known only to the appellant. It is a compilation of evidence gathered, and subjective conclusions reached by the investigators. The appellant had ample opportunity to put forward his views orally and in writing - They involve a quasi-judicial procedure with inbuilt safeguards of natural justice and procedural fairness. The appellant has a fair chance to represent his case including assailing the investigation report, which is not binding on the Original Authority while deciding the lis and if he is still aggrieved by the final decision, the appellant can take up the matter in further app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extensive investigation and passed an Order-in-Original No. 852/2003 dated 31.07.2003 holding that the suppliers and the Importer are related parties and the invoice value in respect of 352 components imported from related parties was ordered to be loaded. Consequent to appellate proceedings, the DC, SVB, Custom House, Chennai had issued a Review Order-in-Original No. 7505/2008 dated 31.03.2008 and inter-alia held that the declared invoice value had to be accepted as transaction value and this review OIO is operative from 31.03.2008 to 30.03.2011. Subsequently citing various other issues no renewal order came to be passed citing certain pending adjudication matters. They were however directed to pay Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) for the subsequent imports. They have submitted 24 Representations / Applications to Customs officials and pleaded for renewal of SVB Order dated 31.03.2008 at the earliest. Subsequently a letter dated 20.02.2023 was received from Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Gr.5B, Custom House, Chennai along with an IR No.11 / 2023 dated 14.02.2023. Further two Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.05.2023 and 22.08.2023 came to be received by them on the matter. The Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No. 11/2001-Cus dated 23rd February 2001. The 3rd renewal of SVB Order dated 31.03.2008 was due on 01.04.2011. Therefore Circular No. 5 / 2016 Customs dated 09.02.2016, which deals with Procedure for investigation of related party import cases and other cases by the Special Valuation Branches is not applicable to their request for renewal of SVB Order. 3) Non-consideration of the material facts on record and the applicable provisions of law vitiates the validity of the IR. 4) There is no logic or reason or grounds to reject the transaction value since all documents were submitted including the Income Tax Assessment reports and CA Certificates. 5) The decision dated 23.10.2023 is taken contrary to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Customs-II, Custom House, Chennai. 6) The impugned decision dated 23.10.23 is not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also against fundamentals of administrative jurisprudence and to secure the interests of justice. The Ld. Counsel Shri M. Manickam prayed; 1) To quash and set aside the decision dated 23.10.2023 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs reiterating the contents of IR No.11/2023 dated 14.02.2023. 2) To pass any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore premature and not maintainable in law. The appellant's fourth ground of appeal, which contends that the decisions dated 23.10.2023 and 14.02.2023 are contrary to Section 14 of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules, warrants rejection. Firstly, the communication dated 23.10.2023 and the IR dated 14.02.2023 represent different stages of the customs valuation process and serve distinct purposes. The IR contains findings of fact, while the subsequent communication merely forwards these findings for appropriate action. The appellant conveniently overlooks that Section 14(1) explicitly states that acceptance of transaction value is subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf. The appellant's reliance on the case of Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner of Customs (2001 SCC 315) is not correct. While the Supreme Court did emphasize the conditions for rejection of transaction value, it nowhere suggested that the mere submission of documents precludes proper investigation of declared values. The appellant's prayer for automatic acceptance of declared values without proper verification would defeat the very purpose of the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstructions, in conformity with the existing rules. The Circular per se is not under challenge. It deals with the subject; Procedure for investigation of related party import cases and other cases by the Special Valuation Branches . We find that the appellant is aggrieved by IR No.11/2023 dated 14.02.2023, which was drawn up following the procedure under Boards Circular No. 05/2016 dated 09.02.2016. The appeal against the said IR was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the said report is not an appealable order. 6. We find that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right but a statutory one. It is also not an ingredient of natural justice. The Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in Vijay Prakash D Mehta Vs Collector of Customs [1989 (39) E.L.T. 178 (S.C.)], held as under; Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions of the grant. 7. That the right to appeal is enshrined in the Customs Act 1962, is not under doubt nor is it challenged. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal falls within that expression. As was observed in Robinson v. Currey (1881) 7 QBD 465, (1881-85) All ER Rep Ext 1770 the words person aggrieved are ordinary English words which are to have the ordinary meaning put upon them . According to Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. 25), page 293, footnote h : the expression is nowhere defined and must be construed by reference to the context of the enactment in which it appears and all the circumstances. Attempts have however from time to time been made to define the expression in various cases. In Sidebotham, Re, ex p Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458, (1874-80) All ER Rep 588 (Ch D at p. 465) it was observed by James, L.J: But the words person aggrieved do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something. (emphasis added) In the instant case, the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the IR is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court was whether the Central Government s power under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949, to review administrative orders could be stated to be in a quasi-judicial capacity. After setting out Lord Justice Atkin s passage in Advani s case (supra), this Court held that three requisites were necessary in order that the act of an administrative body be characterized as quasi-judicial : (i) There must be legal authority; (ii) This authority must be to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects; and (iii) There must be a duty to act judicially. 10. The issue that the IR is not prepared by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Commissioner is not disputed before us. However, applying the test of the three requisite conditions mentioned in Shivji Nathubhai (supra), characterizing a quasi-judicial authority, we find that the officer who has prepared the IR was doing so in his administrative capacity as per a circular issued by the Board. He was not required to act judicially and make any final determination of questions affecting the rights of the appellant, as per the Customs Act, 1962. The officer was not invested with power to determine questions of law o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that there was nothing in the Statute that requires the officer to act judicially while preparing the IR. The said report was prepared as per a circular issued by the Board and was fact-finding in nature. Hence this plea fails. 11. The appellant has stated that they had requested for the IR to be withdrawn since no personal hearing was given before finalising the IR, which was contrary to the principles of natural justice and that the matter requires further investigation. Hence, they had prayed to quash and set aside the decision dated 23.10.2023 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs reiterating the contents of IR No.11/2023 dated 14.02.2023. We note that the general rule in legal proceedings is that he who asserts must prove . This principle finds echo in Section 101 of the Evidence Act - 1872, as was prevalent during the relevant time, 'Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. 12. We have already found that the IR is administrative and fact finding in nature as it does not purport to decide the lis or contest between the contending parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son or to reduce him in rank wherefor reason was to be recorded by it in writing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary proceeding. The facets of the principle of natural justice was considered in some details in State Bank of Patiala Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364], wherein this Court categorically held: Now, coming back to the illustration given by us in the preceding para, would setting aside the punishment and the entire enquiry on the ground of aforesaid violation of sub-clause (iii) be in the interests of justice or would it be its negation? In our respectful opinion, it would be the latter. Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise. It was opined that in an appropriate case, the said right could also be waived, stating: If it is found that he has been so pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the facts are known only to the appellant. It is a compilation of evidence gathered, and subjective conclusions reached by the investigators. The appellant had ample opportunity to put forward his views orally and in writing. We were also informed that after the issue of the IR, certain subsequent events took place and the Customs Department, in furtherance of the process, has also issued two SCN s to the appellant on the issue of valuation of related party import cases relying on the IR. These notices have not been challenged. They are a part of the dispute resolution mechanism. They involve a quasi-judicial procedure with inbuilt safeguards of natural justice and procedural fairness. The appellant has a fair chance to represent his case including assailing the investigation report, which is not binding on the Original Authority while deciding the lis and if he is still aggrieved by the final decision, the appellant can take up the matter in further appeal as provided in the statute. Hence the appellant has not made out a case for quashing the impugned order and we uphold the same. 14. We find that the impugned order holding that the IR is not an appealable order is legal and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
