COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. J.N. TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Final Order No. 1214/2008, dated 24-10-2008 [2009 (238) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal)] on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

(2.) The respondent/importer submitted that their reply dated 21-2-2005 stating that show cause notice issued was void and that the enhancement of value as against the declared value is not relevant for determining value in terms of the Customs Law and as such enhancement of value done is deemed to have been done only at the level of an Asst./Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, it was contended that the attempt of the Department is clearly a back door method to undo the "evaluation" done at the level of Asst./Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Further, it was contended that the demand is barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Act and the question of levying penalty and interest does not arise. Further it was contended that provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act are not attracted where the only dispute is "anti-dumping duty". Likewise, the invocation of Section 114 of the Act was also opposed stating that there was no short levy of anti-dumping duty in the instant case and Section 28 of the Act itself does not come into play and therefore, question of invoking Section 114A of the Act does not arise.

(3.) The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the reply to the show cause notice, by order dated 13-10-2005, confirmed the demand of duty. So far as the levy of penalty and interest, the Authority observed that Sub Section 8 of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not made applicable relating to charging of anti-dumping duty since the provision relating to interest, offences and penalty as applicable in the Customs Act, 1962 were made applicable to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act only from 10-9-2004 and in the case of the respondent, the bill of entry is dated 15-6-2004; therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation and levy of penalty or interest does not arise.