Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1677 - AT - CustomsRecovery of differential duty - import of polished marble slabs from Nepal - N/N. 18 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 30 June 2008 - Held that - It is unambiguously clear that value has to be determined in terms of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and the rules framed therein. There is, therefore, no scope for assigning the task of determining the value to another authority established under a different law. The initial direction of the Commissioner, as well as the grievance articulated in the appeal, are not based on a proper appreciation of the legal provision. The compliances, or requirement to comply, with that description for purpose other than assessment of duty has not been examined by either of the two lower authorities; neither has the lack been agitated in the grounds of appeal which has almost entirely dealt with the override of the Foreign Trade Policy vis-a-vis Indo- Nepal Treaty - there is no reason to delve beyond the grounds of appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Dispute over the upholding of the lower authority's order by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Patna regarding the recovery of differential duty on import of 'polished marble slabs' from Nepal. 2. Interpretation of the notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade regarding the import of goods from Nepal. 3. Authority of the first appellate authority to revisit a decision already accepted by the competent reviewing authority. 4. Applicability of the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade versus the General Foreign Trade Policy in bilateral trade. 5. Determination of the value of imported goods for assessment of duty under the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The appeal by Revenue challenged the upholding of the lower authority's order concerning the recovery of differential duty on 'polished marble slabs' imported from Nepal. The appeal questioned the compliance with notifications issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, allowing the import of certain goods subject to specific conditions. 2. The first appellate authority had accepted the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, leading to the dispute. The appellate authority reiterated the earlier decision, emphasizing the importance of finality in tax matters to avoid chaos. The authority highlighted that once a decision is accepted by a competent reviewing authority, it cannot be altered by a successor or the same individual. 3. The focus of the dispute was on the interpretation of the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade versus the General Foreign Trade Policy in bilateral trade. The first appellate authority emphasized that the issue had been settled and accepted by the Committee of Chief Commissioners, indicating that revisiting the decision would amount to judicial indiscipline. 4. The judgment clarified that the determination of the value of imported goods for duty assessment falls under the Customs Act, 1962. The authority highlighted the need to adhere to the legal provisions and rules framed under the Customs Act for determining the value of goods, emphasizing that other authorities cannot dictate the assessment process. 5. The judgment concluded that there was no merit in the appeal by Revenue, dismissing the challenge against the assessment of 'polished marble slabs' imported from Nepal. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal provisions and maintaining finality in tax matters to ensure stability and consistency in assessments.
|