2018 (9) TMI 935 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Rejects RoM Challenge on Software Value in Imported Server.

The Tribunal dismissed the Review of Order Mechanism (RoM) application challenging the Final Order that included software value with the imported server. ... Rectification of Mistake Application - Review of Order - Held that:- Since the final order was pronounced and dictated in the presence of the ld. Advocate, the RoM cannot be entertained, since it amounts to review of the final order which is not permissible in law - ROM Application dismissed. Issues:1. Review of Order Mechanism (RoM) application challenging the Final Order No. 51381/2018 dated 12.04.2018 regarding the inclusion of software value to the imported server.Analysis:The RoM application was filed against the Final Order, with the appellant arguing that the Tribunal's decision to include the software value with the server was incorrect. The appellant contended that the software was imported electronically after the server import, making it not liable for custom duty. The Revenue opposed the RoM, stating it was an attempt to review the order, which is impermissible. The Tribunal had carefully considered the case before ordering the inclusion of software value with the server. The appellant's argument was based on the premise that the software was downloaded after server import, not pre-loaded. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's grievance was against the Tribunal's decision on software value. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's view that a challenge to the final order should be made before the appropriate forum, emphasizing that RoM cannot be entertained as it amounts to a review of the final order.The Tribunal highlighted that a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and patent, not a debatable legal point. Citing various legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that RoM cannot be entertained once the final order is pronounced in the presence of the concerned parties. The Tribunal dismissed the RoM application, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, and concluded the case on 30/8/2018.