Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 665 - AT - CustomsDemand of differential customs duty - Confiscation - penalty - Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General, DRI to issue the notice - HELD THAT:- This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the power to recover the duty, not paid or short paid after the goods have been assessed and cleared for import is a power that has been conferred to review the earlier decision for assessment. This power which has been conferred under section 28 of the Customs Act on the proper officer, must necessarily mean the proper officer who, in the first instance, assessed and cleared the goods. Thus, the Additional Director General, DRI did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice - It would thus be seen that the Supreme Court in Canon India held that the entire proceedings initiated by the Additional Director General, DRI by issuance of a show cause notice was without any authority of law and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In BAKEMAN’S HOME PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUS., BOMBAY [1997 (6) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal held that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and, therefore, the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|