Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 334 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Additional Director General, DRI to issue SCN - Confiscation of goods - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT:- This precise issue was examined by the Supreme Court in Canon India [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. In view of the aforesaid and respectfully following the decisions of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble High Courts and the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, it is held that the show cause notices issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, are without jurisdiction and therefore all proceedings undertaken by the Department on the basis of or pursuant to the said show cause notices, including the impugned orders dated 31.01.2018, 16.07.2019 and 16.04.2019 respectively are without jurisdiction. Thus, 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. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/S STEELMAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, [2021 (8) TMI 1236 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the entire proceedings arising from the show cause notice, as the Additional Director General, DRI was not the proper officer. Therefore the proper officer to whom the power is conferred under Section 28 of the Act and other related provisions would necessarily mean the proper officer who in the first instance assessed and cleared the goods, i.e., Appraising Officer in the Customs port or Air Cargo Complex. Therefore the Additional Director General of DRI cannot be the proper officer in the facts and circumstances of each of the instant cases where assessments were undisputedly done originally by the respective assessing officers of the Kolkata Customs. The said impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata respectively therefore cannot be sustained and are set aside - appeal allowed.
|