2018 (9) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....110A of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were seized on the allegation of mis-declaration. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has raised the question of maintainability of this appeal. According to him, the appeal relates to dispute on valuation of goods and hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the proper forum for adjudicating this appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962. The point on which Revenue wants us to admit this appeal, however, is on jurisdiction of the CESTAT to reduce the security amount determined by the Adjudicating Authority. According to him, this question involves substantial question of law. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. The dominant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nk Guarantee (with auto-renewal clause)/Security Deposit for estimated differential duty and probable fine and penalty under provisions of the Customs Act'1962 of Rs. 63, 00, 000/-(Rs. Sixty Three Lakh only)" The assessee went up in appeal before the Tribunal with the grievance of enhancement of actual value of the goods by the adjudicating authority without providing any basis thereof. The Tribunal, inter alia, held and directed in the decision under appeal:- "7. Taking the totality of the facts before us, we are of the view that unless and until the evidence of the estimated price per piece is submitted to the importer or before the Bench by the Revenue, the appeal could not be taken as for final hearing. 8. The prayer of the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er for provisional release of goods fits the character of an order of an adjudicating authority. Now, the question arises as to whether while hearing an appeal from an order of the adjudicating authority, the appellate Tribunal is altogether barred from entering into the question of testing if the security terms were too stringent or not for provisional release of goods. The decision of the authority of first instance while exercising power under Section 110A of the Act would include power to lay down the terms of security. If the assessee or the Revenue is aggrieved by the security terms specified by the adjudicating authority and approaches the Tribunal, if the Tribunal is denuded of the power to test the legality of the security terms, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s argued by the Revenue that modification of security terms was impermissible. In our view, however, import of the provisions of Section 110A and 2(1) of the Act would remain confined to laying down the terms at the first instance and the exclusivity of the adjudicating authority to determine that question cannot extend to an appeal proceeding, where the decision of the adjudicating authority can be modified under the aforesaid provision of the statute. Having determined the law on the point raised by Mr. Ganguli, we shall now address the decision of the Tribunal on merit. The reasoning of the Tribunal appears from paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the decision. The Tribunal has held:- "2. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority has allow....