TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication of the order of the adjudicating authority. Thus, there is no prescribed period of limitation for passing an order in exercise of the power under sub-section (2) of Section 129A In the present case, the relevant period of 10 months is covered by the COVID-19 pandemic. During the said period, in suo motu RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, this Court, on 23rd September 2021, while disposing of Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021, extended the period of limitation provided under the statutes. In the facts of the case, considering the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, it cannot be said that the Committee of Commissioners has taken an unreasonably long time to decide. Considering the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in those days due to COVID-19, the decision was taken within a reasonable time. The Committee took the decision on 2nd November 2021, which was received by the Deputy Commissioner (Review) on 11th November 2021, and the appeal was preferred on 17th November 2021. It is true that under Sub-Section (3) of Section 129A, a period of limitation of 3 months has been provided for preferring an appeal which commences on the day on which the order sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued by M/s.Guilin Zhishen Information Technology Co. Ltd. in China. 2. Out of the 4 different categories of goods, the dispute is about 3 categories, the description of which is as under : Item Sr. No. Description of Goods Customs Tariff Head Qty. in PCS Unit price in USD Assessable Value (in INR) Customs Duty (in INR) 1. Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand) 9620 0000 180 55 777640.67 240913.10 2. Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer- CRA01, Unpopular Brand) 9620 0000 110 45 388820.34 120456.50 3. Dual Handle (Unpopular Brand, Parts of Camera Stand) 8529 9090 50 10 39274.78 12167.30 3. On the basis of the Intelligence, the goods were examined 100% by SIIB officers. It was alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued. After taking representative samples, the goods were detained for further investigation. On 21st February 2018, the goods were seized on the ground that the same were found to be mis-declared and undervalued. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the respondent and the customs broker were recorded on 23rd February 2018. The appellant's past import details were retrieved from the system, and it was found that the importer had impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same was passed after a lapse of more than 10 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). His second submission is that CESTAT completely ignored the definitions of identical and similar goods under the Valuation Rules. He submitted that the finding that the goods imported by the appellant in the past were similar or identical is completely erroneous, as the earlier goods purchased were not comparable at all. Coming to the first Item of the Camera Stand (3-axis Stabilizer- CRA02, Unpopular Brand), he submitted that the said Item was completely different from the Item imported by the appellant with a Bill of Entry dated 13th November 2017, which was described as Camera Stand (Zhiyun Crane 2 Model CRA02) . He submitted that the hardware and software for both Items were different. The appellant submitted a detailed technical letter dated 12th December 2017 issued by the manufacturer, which indicates that the first item was of an unpopular brand with a lower version. Regarding Item No.2 of Camera Stand (3 Axis Stabilizer - CRA01, Unpopular Brand), he submitted that it could not be compared with earlier Items imported by the appellant with a Bill of Entry dated 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned Bill of Entry as an unpopular brand. He submitted that in the order-in-original, the adjudicating authority had recorded a finding of fact that Item nos. 1 and 3 imported by the appellant were identical and Item no.2 was of similar goods. The goods in Item no.3 were identical to the goods earlier imported. He submitted that the said finding of fact has been reaffirmed by the CESTAT, and therefore, no interference is called for. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 7. We have considered the submissions made across the Bar. We also perused the submissions in brief , running into 35 pages filed by the appellant before the CESTAT. The first issue is of the bar of limitation in the exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 129A. Sub-section (2) incorporates the powers of the Committee of Commissioners of Customs. If the said Committee is of the opinion that an order passed by the Appellate Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 or 128A of the Customs Act is not legal and proper, it can direct the appropriate officer to file an appeal before the CESTAT. On plain reading of Section 129A, we find that no specific time period has been pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 14(1-A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of deemed value of such goods. Therefore, normally, the assessing officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the assessing officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable value applies. That is also the effect of Rule 3(1) and Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, namely, the adjudicating authority is bound to accept price actually paid or payable for goods as the transaction value. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the bills of entry can be discarded in case it is found that there are any imports of identical goods or similar goods at a higher price at around the same time or if the buyers and sellers are related to each other. In order to invoke such a provision it is incumbent upon the assessing officer to give reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
