TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1164
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-invoicing or over-invoicing as the case may be; and (ii) the provisions of Section 112(iii) being in relation to goods, in respect of which the declared value was higher than the value thereof - was the appellate Tribunal correct in holding that the provisions of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 were not to be considered as a law to deal with over-invoicing in imports? (b) Whether, despite (i) the provisions of Section 111(m) being in relation to 'any goods, i.e. goods including, but not restricted to, dutiable or prohibited goods; and (ii) the emerging trend of international trade mispricing (over-invoicing) as a means of capital flight abroad, which Section 112(iii) seeks to penalize - was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that - the applicability of Section 111(m) was restricted to dutiable or prohibited goods, and goods could not be held liable to confiscation sans nexus with assessment and collection of duty and enforcement of prohibitions? (c) Whether, despite the provisions of Section 111 being in relation only to 'goods brought from a place outside India' and not excluded goods clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer may, on satisfaction that the goods entered for home consumption were not prohibited goods and duty had been paid by the importer, make an order permitting clearance of the goods fro home consumption; and (iii) the expression "may", unlike the expression "shall", clearly indicating vesting of discretion - was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that - the duty liability and prohibited nature of the goods were the only two aspects that could deny clearance for home consumption under the provisions of Section 47? (g) Whether, despite (i) the provisions relating to liability to confiscation being specified under the provisions of Section 111 of the Act and the same being equally applicable to the goods cleared for home consumption; and (ii) the clearance under Section 47 being unable to oust the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to confiscate goods under Section 111 of the Act - was the Hon'ble Tribunal justified in holding that - the liability under section 111 could not be invoked unless the clearance under section 47 had been withheld or subsequently deemed to be revoked? (h) Whether, despite ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction value and what was privy only to the parties in a commercial transaction could not be substituted ? (k) Whether, in view of the extant CESTAT Rules and objections raised by Revenue, including application for recusal on which no separate order was passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, was it proper and justified on the part of the Hon'ble Tribunal to proceed ahead in deciding the impugned case in gross violation of the rules of procedure and the Principles of Natural Justice? 3. At the very outset, Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction. In particular, he invited our attention to the questions (h), (i) and (j) raised by the Revenue, which pertain to valuation of imported goods. It is submitted that in view of Section 130 of the Act, this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal as the issues raised herein relate to valuation of imported goods for the purpose of assessment. 4. As against the above, Mr. Venegaokar, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This for the reason t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (d) Penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 112(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them in relation to the above goods; and (e) Penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them in relation to the above goods" 6. It is evident from the above show-cause notice that before the Revenue could come to the conclusion that there has been a misdeclaration of value in terms of Section 111(m) of the Act, the valuation of the imported goods as declared in the bill of entry has to be redetermined in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. It is only on this redetermination of the valuation of imported goods which involves assessment of goods for the purposes of duty (which would include nil rate of duty) that the occasion to proceed further to allege that the valuation declared in the bill of entry did not correspond with the valuation of the imported goods. Thus, before Section 111(m) could be invoked, the exercise to be carried out by the Revenue would be to redetermine the value of the goods declared by the respondents in the bill of entry. Thus, Section 130 of the Act ousts t....