TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 129B(2) bars review of interim orders referring matters to President for larger bench constitution</h1> CESTAT Mumbai dismissed an application for review under Section 129A/129B(2) of Customs Act 1962 regarding enhancement of imported goods value. The ... Application of Review/Revision under Section 129A / 129B(2) of Customs Act 1962 - enhancement of value of imported goods - HELD THAT:- Section 129B(2) does not provide for review of an interim order passed for the purpose of referring the matter to Hon’ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench on account of divergent views expressed by the Tribunal in its order earlier. For this reason itself, this application should be dismissed. The basic ground which the applicant/appellant stated in the application is that there is no evidence to show that the appellant herein has ever agreed to the assessed value. Accordingly the case of the applicant/appellant is distinguishable and should have been decided by the same Bench. This matter is referred to the Hon’ble President for constitution of Larger Bench only to resolve the dispute which is observed in terms of contrary decisions referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) - application dismissed. 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)
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
