The maintainability of an appeal concerning customs duty determinations lies solely with the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.)

These appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs against the common final order passed by “the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai” (in short “CESTAT”) dated 18.11.2020.

2. The respondent in CMA (MD) No.1013 of 2021 imported used self-propelled workboat and classified the same under CTH 89019000 and availed exemption in excess of 15% of applicable duties under Notification No.27/2002-CUS as amended. The importer took the stand that the workboat falls under CTI 890190000 and whereas the department proposed reclassification under CTI 89059090.

3. The show-cause notice came to be issued after a DRI investigation on the ground of wrong classification and the exemption of 15% availed under Notification No. 27/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002. The respondent in CMA(MD) No.1012 of 2021 is the customs broker who was involved in the export of the vessel. Therefore, show-cause notice was issued to them also.

4. The case was adjudicated for misclassification and non-compliance of the re-export of the vessel within six months as provided under the exemption notification.

5. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, vide Order-in-Original dated 19.11.2012, directed payment of penalty, interest etc. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai. The CESTAT through a common order dated 18.11.2020 allowed the appeals filed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed before this Court.

6. Notice was ordered in these appeals and no substantial question of law was framed at the time of ordering notice.

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, this Court entertained a doubt as to whether the present appeals are maintainable before this Court under Section 130 of “the Customs Act, 1962” (for brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), since it involved claiming exemption under Notification dated 01.03.2002 which is directly or proximately relating to the rate of duty applicable for the purposes of assessment.

8. This Court heard the counsel appearing on either side and carefully went through the materials available on record.

9. In the case in hand, there was a dispute regarding the classification as well as availing exemption of applicable duties in excess of 15% under the exemption Notification No.27/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002.

10. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1993 (68) ELT 3 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“8. Before we consider whether the case of the appellant fails within the said expression, we must note that Section 130, Sub-section (l) and Section 130-E, Clause (b) of the said Act also use the said expression and they refer respectively to the Statement of Case to the High Court on a reference by CEGAT and an appeal to the Supreme Court directly. Section 130(1) states that the Collector of Customs or the other party may require CEGAT to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of an order under appeal before it provided it is not an order relating among other things to the 'determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment'. Clause (b) of Section 130E provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from 'any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate, of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment'.

9. The importance of the present appeal lies not so much in deciding which appeals can be heard by a member of CEGAT sitting singly and which by a Special Bench thereof as in determining where a reference can be made by CEGAT to the High Court