Case Law Details
Lakshami & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Introduction: The case of Lakshami & Co Vs Commissioner of Customs recently presented at CESTAT Chennai reveals an important observation regarding the role of the Commissioner (Appeals) in customs duty assessment. The matter at hand involved a second-hand car and two split air conditioner compressors imported by the appellant, Lakshami & Co. v
Analysis: The appellant, Lakshami & Co, had imported a second-hand car and two split air conditioner compressors. The declared value of the imported goods became a point of contention when the Commissioner (Appeals) decided to interfere with the valuation of the car originally accepted by the customs authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) revaluated the car at a significantly higher amount, resulting in a demand for differential customs duty.
This action by the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged by the appellant, asserting that without a cross-appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no right to revise the value of the car. The counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment in the case of Servo Packaging Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai [2016 (340) E.L.T. 6 (Mad.)] to support their argument.
Conclusion: CESTAT Chennai accepted the appellant’s argument, agreeing that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have enhanced the value of the car without notice and a cross-appeal by the Department. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’s revised valuation, marking a crucial precedent for future cases involving the valuation of goods for customs duties. The appeal was partially allowed, maintaining the reduced fine and penalty but discarding the revised car value.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
