Union of India Vs Sri Rumon Dey (Tripura High Court)
Material Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CESTAT, Kolkata order dated 19.06.2023. Two show cause notices dated 05.11.2014 alleged that the respondent had evaded additional customs duty of ₹12,113 and ₹72,677 by undervaluing cement imported from Bangladesh through Agartala Land Customs Station, alleging that cement from the same manufacturer imported through other ports carried a higher MRP of ₹320 per 50 kg bag.
Procedural History
The Adjudicating Authority, by orders dated 06.10.2015, confirmed the duty demands and imposed equal penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, upheld the orders on 05.02.2016. The respondent then succeeded before CESTAT, Kolkata, which set aside the demand. The Revenue challenged that order before the Tripura High Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether CESTAT wrongly interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision in ITC Ltd.
- Whether the differential duty demand could be sustained without challenging the importer’s self-assessment of the Bills of Entry.
- Whether the CESTAT order was perverse in view of the Explanation to the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Parties’ Submissions
The respondent contended that the self-assessed Bills of Entry had never been challenged by the Department and had therefore attained finality. It also submitted that differences in MRP were natural since the goods were imported through different ports.
