9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 of 500 to 2500 mg./kg. in bulk or loose. Once the carotene and acid values are found to be within the range, the imported CPO would be classified under Chapter Heading 1511 10 00 attracting concessional duty at the rate of 65%, otherwise it would be classified under Chapter Heading 1511 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with rate of duty being 75%. 2.1 It was submitted that it was the case of the Revenue that the goods imported by the applicant were "Other Palm Oil" classifiable under CTH 1511 90 90 attracting basic Customs duty at the rate of 75% and tariff value of USD 471 PMT. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 30-3-2005 came to be issued to the applicant calling upon it to show cause, inter alia, as to why the subject goods should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(f) of the Act. The show cause notice culminated into an order dated 28-7-2006 passed by the adjudicating authority holding that the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, 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 of the provisions of Section 130E of the Act. 2.2 In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemical Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein it has been held thus : "10. Section 129D deals with the powers of the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collector of Customs to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before authorities subordinate thereto and examine the legality or propriety thereof and also to direct such authorities to file appeals. Sub-section (5) was added to Section 129D by the Customs & Central Excise Laws Amendment Act, 1988 and it reads thus : (5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any decision or order in which the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 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 directly and proximately to the rate of duty applicable thereto for purposes of assessment. Whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment is required to be increased or decreased is a question that relates directly and proximately to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The statutory definition of the said expression indicates that it has to be read to limit its application to cases where, for the purposes of assessment, questions arise directly and proximately as to the rate of duty or the value of the goods." 2.3 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.); the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Adani Exports Ltd. [2013 (295) E.L.T. 678 (Guj.)]; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 before the Tribunal so as to examine as to whether the present case falls within the ambit of Section 130 of the Act. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal, which is subject matter of challenge in the appeal, reveals that the Tribunal has recorded that the main issue involved in the appeal is whether the description of imported cargo given in the IGM will make those goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The entire issue before the Tribunal as revealed from its order was as regards the description of the imported goods in the IGM, and as to whether the same have been correctly described. The Tribunal placed reliance upon an earlier decision of its New Delhi Bench in the case of Sigma Electronics v. Collector of Customs, Jaipur - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 401 (Tribunal), wherein it was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction 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 described the goods imported by it. It is in the context of the above controversy, that the Tribunal has rendered its findings. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is clear that none of the findings touch any issue relating to the determination of the rate of duty or value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The entire controversy relates only to the description of the goods in the IGM in connection with the question as to whether such goods are liable to confiscation. None of the issues decided by the Tribunal are in the context of determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. Under the circumstances, the appeal squarely falls within the ambit of Section 130 of the Act and has, therefore, rightly been filed before this Court. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
