2024 (11) TMI 270 - AT - Customs

Revenue appeals dismissed as department failed to meet Rs.50 lakh minimum threshold under CBIC instructions

CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed multiple revenue appeals filed by the department regarding customs duty re-assessment cases. The Commissioner of Customs ... Monetary limits for filing appeals before CESTAT - Re-assessment of customs duty - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the re-assessment of goods at enhanced value and restored the self-assessment at the declared value and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the importer/assessee/respondent - HELD THAT:- We find that the present cases are squarely covered under the CBIC’s instructions dated 02.11.2023. We also find that none of these cases is falling under the exceptions provided in para 2 of the instructions dated 02.11.2023. While dismissing the earlier bunch of Revenue’s appeals on the identical issue, this Bench has considered various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, wherein department’s appeals were dismissed under litigation policy keeping the question of law, if any, open. See VSM IMPEX PVT. LTD. [2024 (5) TMI 1404 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] We are of the considered opinion that the present appeals filed by the department are not maintainable in view of the instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC wherein it has been specifically prescribed that no appeal shall be filed before the CESTAT below the monetary limit of Rs.50 lakhs and if already filed, will have to be withdrawn and consequently, we dismiss all these appeals under litigation policy without going into the merit of each case. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the re-assessment of customs duty at enhanced value.2. Applicability of CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023 on monetary limits for filing appeals.3. Whether the acceptance of enhanced value by the importer precludes them from challenging the enhancement.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Impugned Orders:The main contention of the Revenue in the appeals was that the impugned orders by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) were not sustainable as they were passed without proper appreciation of facts and the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue argued that the importer had voluntarily accepted the re-determined value based on contemporaneous import data and had forfeited their right to a show cause notice and a personal hearing. The Revenue relied on various decisions to support their argument that once the enhancement is accepted by the importer, the assessing officer is not required to pass a reasoned order. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the re-assessment at the enhanced value and restored the self-assessment at the declared value, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court in Dunlop India Ltd and Eicher Tractors Ltd.2. Applicability of CBIC's Instructions on Monetary Limits:The respondents contended that the appeals were not maintainable due to the CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, which set monetary limits for filing appeals. According to Section 131BA of the Customs Act, the CBIC is empowered to issue instructions for regulating the filing of appeals based on monetary limits. The instructions specified that no appeal shall be filed in the CESTAT if the amount involved is less than Rs. 50 lakh. The respondents argued that the present cases did not fall under any exceptions provided in the instructions and that the amount involved in each case was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal found that the cases were indeed covered under the CBIC's instructions, and none of the exceptions applied. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of the CBIC's instructions and noted that similar appeals had been dismissed under the litigation policy.3. Acceptance of Enhanced Value by the Importer:The Revenue argued that once the importer accepted the enhanced value and paid the differential customs duty, they were precluded from challenging the enhancement. The Tribunal, however, did not delve into the merits of this argument due to the applicability of the CBIC's instructions on monetary limits. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the ground of maintainability under the litigation policy, leaving any questions of law open.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing the CBIC's instructions dated 02.11.2023, which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case due to the binding nature of the instructions and the fact that the amount involved in each appeal was below the prescribed limit. The decision aligns with the objective of reducing litigation involving meager amounts of revenue.