2005 (1) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of proper officer under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing demand of duty.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for issuing a demand of duty. The Tribunal considered the case where imports were made through Bombay Sea Port, and assessment orders were issued by officers of Bombay Custom House. A show cause notice demanding duty was subsequently issued by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) instead of the proper officer of Bombay Custom House. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case and concluded that the matter should have been dealt with by the proper officer who made the assessments under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal also discussed the reliance placed by the Departmental Representative (DR) on a decision of the Larger Bench regarding the authority of the ADG. DRI to issue a demand of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's reliance on a different case law, emphasizing that when one officer initiates assessment proceedings, another concurrent jurisdiction officer cannot start the same proceedings. Despite this, the Tribunal noted that the Collector (Preventive) had proceeded with the reassessment of Bills of Entry, which were initially assessed and cleared under the Customs Act by an officer of Collector of Customs, Mumbai Port.

Considering the Larger Bench's decision and the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Prev.) over the area of import and Bill of Entry filing, the Tribunal concluded that the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act was not without jurisdiction. The Tribunal set aside the order of adjudication passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.) and directed that the issues be determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs-in-charge of the group that assessed the Bill of Entry at Bombay Port. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice in the de novo proceedings and instructed the Collector of Customs to hear the appellants on all open issues and pass a suitable order. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in the terms mentioned in the judgment.