The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) while dismissing the appeal of Hyundai Motors has held that the investigation report by Special Valuation Branch (SVB) for finalising provisionally assessed Bill of Entry’s (BOE) is not an ‘appealable order’.
The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that the investigation report is administrative and fact finding in nature as it does not purport to decide the lis or contest between the contending parties by a statutory authority. A person who joins the inquiry and who assists or is questioned or submits documents and other proof in a dispute that is of assistance in reaching a conclusion on the matter being inquired into, cannot have a grievance that he was not given a personal hearing before finalizing the report.
The appellants/assessee, is in the business of manufacturing automobile passenger cars in India. The appellant is one of the 100% wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Hyundai Motor Company, South Korea.
The appellant regularly imports various automobile components, parts, assemblies and subassemblies from overseas countries. These are sourced from both related parties and also unrelated parties and are being cleared through the three seaports of Chennai and the Air Cargo Complex, Chennai.
The appellant submitted that the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), of the Custom House, has issued an Investigation Report (IR)regarding the related party imports made by them.
The appellant was apprehensive about the outcome of the IR on the quantum of duty liability, not only for the bills of entry already provisionally assessed but also for the bills of entry to be filed on a day-to-day basis. They hence requested SVB to re-examine the IR.
A letter was issued by the Additional Commissioner, SVB, to them, stating that there is no provision for re- examination of the IR. Aggrieved by the letter they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Authority held that the IR is not an appealable order as per the Customs Act and rejected their appeal.
The tribunal held that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the IR is a quasi-judicial decision or order issued under the statute and that they are an arraigned party having a ‘legal grievance’, that they satisfy the criteria stated in the above judgment, inasmuch as the IR has wrongly deprived them of something, or wrongly refused them something, or wrongfully affected their title to something.
Hence, the tribunal noted that the assessee, Hyundai Motors cannot be stated to be a ‘person aggrieved’ by the IR and not just by an apprehension of any of the consequences that may ensue. The issue of allegedly not granting them a personal hearing shall be dealt with later in the order.
The tribunal while dismissing the appeal held that Hyundai Motors has a fair chance to represent his case including assailing the investigation report, which is not binding on the Original Authority while deciding the lis and if he is still aggrieved by the final decision, the appellant can take up the matter in further appeal as provided in the statute.
Case Details
Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: Customs Appeal No.40501 of 2024
Date: 08.01.2025
Counsel For Appellant: M. Manickam
Counsel For Respondent: S. Subramaniam
