2015 (1) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds Order-in-Appeal in betel nut value case, dismissing Revenue's stay petition

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA Versus LAKHDATAR TRADERS

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's stay petition regarding the assessment order enhancing the value of betel nut. Despite the Revenue's arguments on the ... Stay application - Enhancement in value of betel nut - Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the assessment order of the lower authority enhancing the value of betel nut from US $660 per MT - The contention is that Section 17(5) provides for time limit of 15 days for assessment and passing order. The contention is that the assessment order was passed on 10-3-2012 whereas the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-3-2012. The contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have waited for expiry of 15 days time limit provided under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- 15 days time limit prescribed is not the minimum time limit prescribed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962 and in their assessment, the value was enhanced without following the procedure prescribed under Section 17(5) of Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that subsequently, the bills of entry are being assessed at the value declared by asking them to furnish Indemnity Bond of differential value/differential duty. The ld. Advocate stated that they have furnished the Indemnity Bond of differential value. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that their assessment is made on the provisional basis and the Revenue’s interests are safeguarded by furnishing Indemnity Bond by the applicant. The impugned consignment is part of the consignment of 7000 MT. In this case also, they have furnished Indemnity Bond. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Application for early hearing of stay petition dismissed as infructuous.2. Revenue's application for staying the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. Kol/Cus/CKP/32/2012.3. Dispute over the assessment order enhancing the value of betel nut.4. Interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding time limits for assessment.5. Submission of Indemnity Bond by the respondent for differential value/duty.6. Dismissal of Revenue's stay petition by the Tribunal.Analysis:1. The respondent filed an application for early hearing of the stay petition, which was dismissed as infructuous since the stay petition was already listed for the day's hearing. The Tribunal disposed of the miscellaneous application accordingly.2. The Revenue sought to stay the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. Kol/Cus/CKP/32/2012, which set aside the assessment order enhancing the value of betel nut. The Revenue argued that the assessment order was passed before the prescribed time limit under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that the value should have been based on NIDB data entry showing a higher value per MT. However, after considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's application and dismissed the stay petition.3. The respondent's advocate argued that the assessment was done without following the procedure under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. They mentioned that the bills of entry were being assessed at the declared value, with the provision of furnishing an Indemnity Bond for any differential value or duty. The respondent had already provided the Indemnity Bond for the differential value, stating that the assessment was provisional and the Revenue's interests were protected by the Bond. The Tribunal noted the submission but ultimately dismissed the Revenue's stay petition.4. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the time limit for assessment and passing orders. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have waited for the prescribed time limit before passing the Order-in-Appeal. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).5. The respondent's submission of the Indemnity Bond for the differential value and duty was crucial in the proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged the provision of the Bond as a safeguard for the Revenue's interests in cases of provisional assessment.6. In conclusion, after considering all submissions and records, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's stay petition, finding no merit in their arguments regarding the assessment order and the value enhancement of betel nut. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of the facts and circumstances presented during the proceedings.