Section 129B(2) bars review of interim orders referring matters to President for larger bench constitution

CESTAT Mumbai dismissed an application for review under Section 129A/129B(2) of Customs Act 1962 regarding enhancement of imported goods value. The tribunal held that Section 129B(2) does not permit review of interim orders passed for referring matters to the President for larger bench constitution due to divergent tribunal views. Despite applicant's argument that no evidence showed agreement to assessed value and the case was distinguishable, the application was dismissed as the matter was referred to President solely to resolve disputes arising from contrary decisions.

---

---

Issues:
Review/Revision under Section 129A/129B(2) of Customs Act 1962 for interim order referral to Larger Bench.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an application for review/revision under Section 129A/129B(2) of the Customs Act 1962 regarding an interim order referral to a Larger Bench. The applicant sought a review of the interim order dated 04.05.2022, which referred the matter to the Hon'ble President for considering questions of law. Section 129B(2) does not provide for the review of an interim order for referring the matter to a Larger Bench due to divergent views expressed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the application was deemed dismissible on this ground.

The primary contention raised by the applicant/appellant was the lack of evidence showing their agreement to the assessed value, making their case distinguishable and warranting a decision by the same Bench. However, the order-in-appeal highlighted findings indicating that importers' agreement to enhanced values automatically rejects the declared value on the Bill of Entry. Various judicial pronouncements were cited, emphasizing that once an importer accepts an enhanced value without protest, they are precluded from challenging it subsequently. The burden on the Department to establish the declared value as incorrect is discharged when the enhanced value is voluntarily accepted.

The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced decisions from the Tribunal and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that importers' consent to enhanced values becomes the declared transaction value, obviating the need for further investigation. The judgment also highlighted that once an importer accepts the value without protest, they cannot later dispute its correctness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation reinforced the Customs authorities' discretion to rely on contemporaneous evidence to determine the correct value, irrespective of the invoice figure.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for review/revision, leading to its dismissal. The matter was referred to the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the dispute arising from conflicting decisions cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) and other references in the interim order. The judgment concluded by dismissing the application, emphasizing the binding nature of importers' acceptance of assessed values and the legal implications of such agreements.

(Order pronounced in the open court)

---