| Company | Value | Change | %Change |
|---|
The appeal had challenged an order of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated September 4, 2019, raising key questions on the classification of imported goods and the interpretation of judicial precedents.
It is understood that the ruling has significant implications for the jurisdictional boundaries of customs appeals and settles classification disputes.
Some of the key questions that arise are that as the appellant-revenue department had sought judicial intervention on several grounds, presenting the following substantial questions of law including, whether the CESTAT erred in holding that there was no evidence suggesting that the imported goods were anything other than license stickers or licenses?
Secondly, whether the CESTAT correctly interpreted and applied the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.I. Pavunny vs. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin [1997 (90) ELT 241 (SC)]? Thirdly, Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that motive is a necessary prerequisite for demanding duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? And, lastly, whether the CESTAT, as the final fact-finding authority, passed a reasoned and speaking order after fully considering the materials on record and the findings of the adjudicating authority?
Court’s Analysis and Findings
While hearing, the High Court delved into the provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Sections 130 and 130E, which demarcate the jurisdiction of appellate courts in customs matters.
The court observed that disputes concerning the classification of goods and the rate of duty fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act.
It held that the classification of goods under different tariff headings directly impacts the rate of customs duty, making it a question of law related to the rate of duty. Such questions must be addressed by the Supreme Court, as they fall outside the purview of the High Court under Section 130 of the Act. The court also emphasized that the CESTAT’s order was reasoned, detailed, and based on factual findings. No perversity or legal infirmity was demonstrated by the appellant-revenue to justify the intervention of the High Court.
Also Read: Will the new RBI governor deliver a pre-policy rate cut? Experts weigh in
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from the classification of imported goods, specifically “Windows XPE Embedded” software and “Windows XPE Embedded” stickers. Initially, these goods were classified under Heading No. 85238020 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which attracted a higher rate of customs duty. However, following a notification issued on March 17, 2012, the respondent-importer reclassified the goods under Heading No. 49070030, resulting in a lower duty liability.
This reclassification was contested by the revenue department, which alleged inconsistency and sought to impose a higher rate of duty based on the earlier classification. The matter was adjudicated by the CESTAT, which ruled in favour of the importer, prompting the revenue department to file the present appeal before the High Court.
Impact on Personal Liability of Directors
The court further dismissed the revenue’s appeal against the imposition of penalties on the directors of Priya Limited. It noted that the CESTAT had granted relief to the respondent company on merits, which extended to the directors by implication. The High Court held that penalties on directors were consequential and untenable in the absence of a sustainable case against the company.
Abhishek A. Rastogi, Founder of Rastogi Chambers and counsel for the respondent-importers, lauded the judgment, stating, “This decision not only reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries under the Customs Act but also provides relief to importers facing unwarranted demands. The dismissal of personal liability on directors is a welcome step toward safeguarding individuals from baseless penalties.”
The court categorically stated that the appeals concerning classification disputes and rate of duty must be directed to the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The present appeal failed to raise any substantial question of law and was dismissed as non-maintainable, the court said.
“This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to statutory appellate mechanisms in customs disputes. By directing classification and rate-of-duty-related matters to the Supreme Court, the judgment reinforces clarity and ensures that disputes are resolved at the appropriate judicial forum”, added Mr Rastogi.
For importers, this decision provides significant relief and legal certainty, especially in cases where classification leads to disputes with the revenue department. The dismissal of personal liability on directors further highlights the necessity of a merit-based approach in imposing penalties.
This judgment is poised to have far-reaching implications, streamlining the jurisdictional process, and reinforcing the principles of fairness and classification of licensed software in customs adjudication.
Also Read: States divided over GST rate rationalisation amid economic concerns
