TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Appellant's Customs Duty Liability Affirmed but Jurisdiction Issue Found</h1> <h3>PME POWER SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> PME POWER SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - TMI Issues:1. Import of Water Treatment Plant for exhibition under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus.2. Failure to re-export the imported goods within the stipulated time period.3. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass the order.Issue 1: Import of Water Treatment Plant for exhibition under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus.The appellant imported a Water Treatment Plant (RWT) from Czech Republic under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus for display at an exhibition. The notification required re-export of the goods within six months from the closure of the event. The appellant failed to re-export the RWT within the specified period and requested extensions, citing various reasons for the delay. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's liability to pay customs duty arose due to the failure to re-export the goods as per the notification's conditions.Issue 2: Failure to re-export the imported goods within the stipulated time period.Despite multiple extension requests, the RWT was not re-exported within the extended time frame, leading to a contravention of the notification's provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's acknowledgment of the duty payment obligation in case of failure to re-export within the granted extensions. This failure to comply with the re-export requirement rendered the appellant liable to pay the customs duty on the imported RWT.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass the order.The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the original adjudicating authority, passed an order confiscating the RWT and imposing duties, interest, and penalties on the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to cases with a value of less than Rs. 5 lakh. Since the value of the matter exceeded this limit, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was deemed without jurisdiction and non-est in law. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered this jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant. Consequently, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) were declared unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, while affirming the appellant's liability to pay customs duty, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the department for adjudication by the competent authority within the pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellant was granted one month to discharge the liability, failing which the order of remand would take effect. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand for re-adjudication by the competent original Adjudicating Authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
