Case Law Details
TBK India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
Facts- M/s TBK India Pvt Ltd challenges order-in-appeal of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which has included ‘royalty’ and ‘lumpsum fees’ in the assessable value of imports effected by them from a related person, M/s TDK Toshiba Limited, Japan. The original order dated 2nd February 2006, accepting the invoice value, came up for review on expiry of three years and renewal thereof, in order of continuance for a further period of three years, was sought to be quashed in appeal filed on behalf of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs who had proceeded in the manner permitted in section 129D (2) of Customs Act, 1962 and presumably on the supposition that the official in the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) had undertaken adjudicatory function vested in ‘proper officer’ intended by section 17 or section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. The finding of the first appellate authority, who ordered the addition of royalty of 3% and 5% of the selling price along with the lumpsum fees of ¥ 14,000,000, is cause of grievance to the appellant.
Conclusion- The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods. We do not interfere with proceedings under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 except if terms of such assessment is a cause of grievance. Even so, no incidence of provisional assessment is impugned before us either. We are also not vested with authority to approve or disapprove an ‘advance ruling’ which has yet to place burden on goods under Section 46 of Customs Act, 1962.
Further, for the Tribunal to render a decision on goods that are, as yet provisionally assessed, would be a premature intervention. The time of finalization that should inevitably take place is also, as yet, uncertain. It is also apparent that procedure does not deter the finalization of an assessment for want of decision by the Tribunal or, should such need arise, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
