9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdictional retention of the file. 2. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount. 3. Comparison of imports with related parties. 4. Consideration of high commercial value and quantity levels in the order. 5. Request for out of turn hearing of the appeal. Jurisdictional Retention of the File: The appellants sought retention of the file within the jurisdiction of the Bench based on a Public Notice issued by the Hon'ble President. The Department confirmed that the appellants were located within the jurisdiction of the Bench. Consequently, the prayer for retention of the file within the jurisdiction of the Bench was accepted. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty Amount: The appellant requested a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 181,82,443, stating that they had already deposited Rs. 77 lakhs and Rs. 14 lakhs were withheld by the Department. The imports were made from related parties in France and Singapore. The Department found discrepancies in the declared value compared to contemporary imports by another entity. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed to load the proposed value by 17.83% instead of 20% due to differences in price. The Tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 45 lakhs for the appeal hearing, with the balance of duty waived and recovery stayed until appeal disposal. Comparison of Imports with Related Parties: The appellants admitted importing from related parties and acknowledged the differences in value compared to other imports. They argued that their imports were of a significantly higher quantity, justifying a lower loading of value. The Tribunal noted the appellants' submission that their imports were of high commercial value and quantity levels, which they claimed had not been adequately considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consideration of High Commercial Value and Quantity Levels: The appellants contended that the order was not a speaking order as their high-volume imports were not appropriately factored into the decision. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' argument that their imports were substantial compared to those of another company, which was not adequately considered in the order. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the appellants' own submissions supported the loading of value by 17.83% instead of 20%. Request for Out of Turn Hearing of the Appeal: The appellants requested an out-of-turn hearing of the appeal, citing the substantial pre-deposits made and the unique circumstances of their case. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the appellants' compliance with pre-deposit requirements, directed them to report compliance by a specific date and allowed them to apply for an early hearing of the appeal after meeting the pre-deposit obligation.
|
