Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Mayur Enterprises (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court heard an appeal filed by the revenue challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) concerning the importation of betel nuts below the minimum import price (MIP) fixed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). Before examining the merits, the Court considered a delay of eight days in filing the appeal. After reviewing the reasons provided in the affidavit, the Court found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it.
The revenue proposed several substantial questions of law relating to whether the Tribunal’s decision failed to consider notifications issued under the FTDR Act, the Central Government’s authority to regulate imports through MIP, the legal competence of the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to issue restrictions, and the consequences of importing betel nuts below the prescribed CIF value. Another issue raised was whether the tariff value declared by the importer could override DGFT notifications when the shipping bill’s valuation stood annulled by such notifications.
During the hearing, the Court noted that similar questions had already been adjudicated in earlier appeals—specifically in CUSTA/31/2018—where the Tribunal’s order had been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. In that earlier decision, the Court held that the Tribunal did not have the benefit of being informed about binding precedent, particularly the Division Bench judgment in Union of India v. Navin Kr. Jha, 2016 (341) E.L.T. 561 (Cal.).
