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>Tribunal Overturns Orders: Relief for PPN and Marubeni</h1> <h3>M/s. PPN Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Marubeni Corporation Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai</h3> M/s. PPN Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Marubeni Corporation Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Delay in Finalization of Assessment2. Alleged Undervaluation of Goods3. Imposition of Penalties and Confiscation of Goods4. Jurisdiction of Customs AuthoritiesSummary:1. Delay in Finalization of Assessment:The appellant, M/s. PPN Power Generating Co. Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, faced significant delays in the finalization of the assessment by the Customs Department. Despite continuous requests from M/s. PPN for finalization starting from 2002, the final assessment was only completed in 2019, resulting in a delay of over 15 years. The Tribunal noted that this delay was inordinate and against the instructions issued by CBIC, which stipulate a reasonable period for finalization of assessments.2. Alleged Undervaluation of Goods:The department alleged that M/s. PPN undervalued goods imported from M/s. Marubeni Corporation, Japan, based on the fact that M/s. Marubeni procured some items at higher prices from other suppliers. The Tribunal found that the transaction value declared by M/s. PPN was based on the contract value agreed with M/s. Marubeni, which included the entire project cost. There was no evidence of any hidden payments or additional amounts paid over the contract value. The Tribunal relied on precedents, such as the case of Agarwal Industries Vs. CC Vizag, to conclude that the transaction value should be accepted unless there are special circumstances warranting its rejection.3. Imposition of Penalties and Confiscation of Goods:The original authority imposed penalties and ordered the confiscation of goods based on the alleged undervaluation. However, the Tribunal found that the department failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the rejection of the transaction value. The Tribunal also noted that the delay in finalizing the assessment violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the penalties and confiscation orders unsustainable.4. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities:The Tribunal addressed the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is the proper officer to finalize provisional assessments. However, when issues of confiscation and penalty are involved, the case should be adjudicated by an officer empowered to handle such matters. The Tribunal found that the proceedings were ultra vires the powers and jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, further invalidating the penalties and confiscation orders.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, including the demand for differential duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties on M/s. PPN and M/s. Marubeni. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely finalization of assessments and adherence to legal principles in determining transaction values and imposing penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
