TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification did not specify area of jurisdiction for the “officers of Customs” appointed thereunder. The Board did not invoke Section 5(1) of the Act to specify such jurisdiction either. The SCN and the corrigendum thereto were issued without jurisdiction and the same are quashed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/462 & 463/2004 - 1135-1136/2008 - Dated:- 6-10-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri J. Shankar Raman and V. Balasubramanian, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. M/s. Wintech Inc. (Proprietor, Sri A.M. Amiruddin), appellants in appeal No.C/463/04, had imported two consignments of used photocopier components and sub-assemblies through Chennai Seaport and filed Bills of Entry Nos. 401387 dated 10-6-2002 and 433667 dated 18-10-2002 along with invoices, packing lists, bill of lading etc. The assessing authority suspected undervaluation of the goods by the importer. The goods were subjected to 100% examination by Customs officers and Chartered Engineers, who estimated higher value for the goods than what had been declared by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment to reopen the issues through the above SCN where the order of adjudication passed by the Additional Commissioner had attained finality in the absence of appeal by the department. Wintech Inc. raised certain other grounds also against the proposals made in the SCN. Shri C.K. Geever also replied to the notice. As requested by the importer, the adjudicating authority viz. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Imports), Chennai allowed Shri C.K. Geever to be cross-examined by the counsel for Wintech Inc. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner passed the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as under :- ORDER (1) I determine the value of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 401387 dated 10-6-2002 and Bill of Entry No. 433667 dated 18-10-2002 to be Rs. 49,22,726.50 and Rs. 30,50,684/- respectively being the transaction values under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 read with Sec. 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) I hold the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 401387 dt. 10-6-2002 totally valued at Rs. 49,22,727/- and also the imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 433667 dated. 18-10-2002 totally valued at Rs. 30,50,684/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has been raised in the present appeals also. 3. Heard both sides on the jurisdictional issue. The ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that, in the absence of Notification by the Central Board of Excise and Customs specifying the territory for the Additional Director-General of Central Excise Intelligence (ADCEI, for short) to function as officer of Customs so appointed by the Central Government under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.) dated 9-5-2000 as amended by Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.) dated 23-11-2000, the ADGCEI had no jurisdiction to issue the above SCN and corrigendum thereto covering the imports made by Wintech Inc. through Chennai Seaport. He pointed out that Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.) had not specified territorial jurisdiction for the ADGCEI to function as Commissioner of Customs. According to the ld. counsel, the territory ought to have been determined and notified by the Board. In this connection, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Customs Act were referred to. Counsel also cited certain other Notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, wherein the area of jurisdiction was also specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of jurisdiction. (Notification No. 106/2007-Customs (N.T.) dated 17-10-2007 and No. 229/88-Cus. dated 31-3-1986). However, in respect of Central Excise Intelligence there is no such restriction in the area of jurisdiction and hence, it is clarified that the officers of DGCEI has All India Jurisdiction in relation to Customs matters and the officers of the DGCEI have the authority and competence to investigate Customs matters and issue notices in relation to the cause action arising in the whole of India. 5. It is also further stated that in respect of Notification No.70/2002-Customs (NT) dated 7-3-2002, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have been appointed as Customs Officers at the respective level indicate the area of jurisdiction as the whole of India. This does not restrict the area of jurisdiction for the officers of DRI and rather reiterates the position that their jurisdiction extends to the whole of India in terms of Section 1(2). Hence, the absence of such a mention of All India jurisdiction in the notification does not alter the legal position of such officers in terms of Section 1(2). The ld. SDR has urged that the jurisdictional objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs. It was for the CBEC under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act to specify the area of jurisdiction, but, admittedly, the Board did not do it either. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 reads as follows :- 5. Powers of officers of customs. - (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under this Act. The scheme of things is clear from a combined reading of Section 4(1) and Section 5(1) of the Customs Act. Where the Central Government (prior to 11-5-2002) appointed a person under Section 4(1) of the Act to be an officer of Customs but did not specify territorial limits for his functions, it was for the Board under Section 5(1) to specify such limits in exercise of its power to impose conditions and limitations subject to which such officer of Customs could exercise the powers conferred on him under the Act. Section 5(1) authorized the Board to impose conditions and limitations for an officer of Customs [appointed under Section 4(1)] to exercise his powers or discharge his duties. From 11-5-2002, both the power to appoint a person as an office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rading Co. (supra) is of no aid to the Revenue in the present case. In that case, the question considered by the Bench was whether an Additional Director-General in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had power to issue show-cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act in terms of Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.) dated. 26-4-1990 issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Act. We find that the said Notification had clearly specified whole of India as the area of jurisdiction for the ADG, DRI, New Delhi to exercise the powers of Collector of Customs . As noted by the Larger Bench, it was not in dispute that, under Notification No. 19/90, ADG, DRI, New Delhi was appointed to be a Collector of Customs for the whole of India. As we have already found in the present case, Notification No. 31/2000 (as amended) issued by the Government under Section 4(1) did not specify any area of jurisdiction for ADGCEI to function as Commissioner of Customs , nor did the Board specify such area under Section 5(1) of the Act. 7. We have also perused other Notifications referred to by the counsel. In Notification No. 30/97-Cus. (N.T.), the Central Government, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
