2023 (8) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") in Customs Appeal No. 87534 of 2013 dated 3rd January 2020. 2. The Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant without hearing the case on merits on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication, when in fact the remand was only for a limited purpose of re-quantification of customs duty, after deciding the issues on merits against the Appellant? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in refusing to correct the error apparent on record in its final order on the ground that the ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., but the price of the imported goods are at arm's length and invoice value as declared is acceptable as "transaction value" under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. In the said order, it is noted that the order was subject to review after a period of three years. (v) On 2nd February 2011, on an application made by the Appellant for review of the above Order-in-Original dated 31st October 2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the said authority after reviewing the Order-in-Original and various documents filed in the course of the review proceedings did not find any reason to interfere with the earlier Order-in-Original dated 31st October 2007, accepting the declared invoic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment has to be ascertained in relation to the imports in order to determine its inclusion as per CVR 2007. The order-in-original has not recorded any verification of the facts and submissions made by the importer. 6. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the impugned order as not proper or correct. The additions sought in the appeal are allowed. However, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the respondent before any further adjudication by the SVB so that the importer/respondent could put forth the appropriate documentary evidence regarding the quantum of loading as per CVR 2007, before any review order is passed by the SVB." (emphasis supplied) (viii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant filed an appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Tribunal on 3rd January 2020 and 30th June 2020 then the present appeal is filed. 5. The Appellant would contend that the Tribunal is not correct in observing in the impugned order that since the Commissioner (Appeal) has remanded the matter to the Original Authority for a detailed fact finding based on the available records, the appeal filed by the Appellant cannot be considered on merits. The Appellant would contend that the Commissioner (Appeal) in her order has given a categorical finding on merits that the royalty under the Technical Assistance Agreement is required to be added under Rule 10(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 for arriving at the correct value and it is only for the quantification purpose of the said findin....