(A) Customs Act, 1962, Section 129 (A) – Customs – Limitation – Held that no specific time period has been prescribed for the Committee of Commissioners to exercise the power under sub-section (2) of Section 129A – Section 129D of the Customs Act deals with similar powers of the Committee of Commissioners when orders are passed by the Principal Commissioners of Customs as adjudicating authority – There is a similar power to direct the proper officer to apply to the Appellate Tribunal – However, sub-section (3) of Section 129D imposes a specific limitation of three months from the date of communication of the order of the adjudicating authority – Thus, there is no prescribed period of limitation for passing an order in exercise of the power under sub-section (2) of Section 129A – It is true that even if the law does not provide for a specific period for taking a particular action, the authority vested with the power to take action must take the action within a reasonable time – Relevant period of 10 months is covered by the COVID-19 pandemic – During the said period, in suo motu this Court, on 23rd September 2021, while disposing of Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021, extended the period of limitation provided under the statutes – Considering the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in those days due to COVID-19, the decision was taken within a reasonable time – The Committee took the decision on 2nd November 2021, which was received by the Deputy Commissioner (Review) on 11th November 2021, and the appeal was preferred on 17th November 2021 – It is true that under Sub-Section (3) of Section 129A, a period of limitation of 3 months has been provided for preferring an appeal which commences on the day on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the concerned Authority – But, even the said period stood extended in view of the orders this Court passed from time to time in suo motu proceedings.(Para 7)
(B) Customs Act. 1962, Section 14, 111, 112(a) and 114AA – Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – Customs – Penalty – Goods found to be mis-declared and undervalued – Submitted by appellant that the finding that the goods imported by the appellant in the past were similar or identical is completely erroneous, as the earlier goods purchased were not comparable at all – In paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment, a comparative table of the goods subject matter of this appeal imported by the appellant and the goods imported by the appellant earlier has been incorporated – After due consideration, the adjudicating authority and CESTAT found the goods identical to/similar to the ones imported earlier –Find that except for the description as an “unpopular brand,” the products appear to be identical/similar – Factual finding rendered by CESTAT is after a detailed consideration of the material on record – Statement made by an officer of the appellant during the inquiry before the adjudicating authority that there is a little difference in the hardware and software functions in the disputed goods as compared to the earlier versions – In the order-in-original and in the impugned judgment of CESTAT on facts, it was found that Item nos. 1 and 3 were identical goods, and Item no. 2 was of similar goods – Detailed reasons have been recorded in the order-in original as to why the transaction value of the imported goods has been discarded – Cogent reasons have been assigned to arrive at the assessable value – Find no error in the view taken by the CESTAT – No fault can be found with the imposition of penalties – Appeal liable to be dismissed. (Para 8 to 10)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 167 SC
[2024 INSC 204]
M/S Global Technologies And Research Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi (Import)
Civil Appeal No. 9385 of 2022-Decided on 15-03-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-167-SC.pdf
