Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1286 of 2011. Case: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai Vs Penshibao Wang P. Ltd.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1286 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri K. Ravichandrabaabu, SCGSC and For Respondents: Miss. Manisha Mathews for M/s. S. Murugappan, Advocates. |
| Judges | D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130 |
| Citation | 2014 (303) ELT 492 (Mad) |
| Judgement Date | June 17, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
-
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, challenges the order dated 28-10-2009 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT") whereby and whereunder the second appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by way of a non-speaking order.
-
The question involved in the second appeal relates to the verification of influence of relationship between the importer and the supplier in respect of the transaction value of imported goods. The case was investigated by the department and as per order dated 26-12-2000 it was held that both the importer and their supplier were related under Rule 2(2)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. This finding appears to have been recorded on the premise that the foreign supplier had 35% share capital in Indian company. The statutory authority further ordered to load the invoice value of all the imports by the importer from the related supplier by 20%.
-
The order passed by the statutory authority dated 26-12-2000 was challenged by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). The first appellate authority opined that it has not been shown that any person is holding 5% or more of the voting stock in both the importer and supplier. Therefore, the Department has not proved the relationship within the meaning of Rule 2(2)(iv)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
-
Being aggrieved by the said order the Customs Department preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT without a reasoned Order, dismissed the appeal. It is the said order which is challenged in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
-
The learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the appeal before the CESTAT was a statutory appeal and as such, the CESTAT was expected to decide the matter objectively. However, the CESTAT did not advert to the basic facts and rejected the appeal by way of a non-speaking order. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.C.E., Coimbatore v. Kwality Fun Foods & Restaurant P. Ltd., reported in 2010 (259) ELT 641 (S.C.) in support of his contention.
-
The learned counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the CESTAT. According to the learned counsel, the appellant has not produced any fresh material before...
To continue reading
Request your trial