9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether the said Tribunal had not erred in law in directing remand of the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) even though the said Tribunal had categorically held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal? 3. The facts which give rise to this question of law are narrated herein below. 4. The appellant had imported enamelled aluminium wire and copper wire by virtue of four bills of entry dated 02.02.2013, 11.02.2013, 13.02.2013 and 19.02.2013. The said goods were seized by the Customs Authorities. The appellant applied for provisional release of the said goods under Section 110A of the said Act. By an order dated 03.05.2013, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) directed the provisional release of the goods subject to the appellant giving a bond for 100% of the value of the imports with a bank guarantee for 25% of the said value and payment of differential duty in cash. This order was passed in the file and we have examined the file and confirm the same. The order was passed on 03.05.2013 by Mr Pawan Jain, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). The same was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner (Delta) (Mr Pawa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elta) to the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with the original order dated 03.05.2013 as also the order communicated by virtue of the letter dated 21.05.2013 and was aggrieved by the conditions imposed for the provisional release. 8. It is appropriate to mention that, in the meanwhile, before the communication dated 21.05.2013 was issued, the appellant had filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) 3344/2013 challenging the conditions imposed by virtue of the order dated 03.05.2013. The same was dismissed as withdrawn as would be evident from the order passed on 20.05.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court, which was as under:- "At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 directing provisional release of the seized goods is an appealable order and the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal, if he is aggrieved by the said provisional release order. In view of this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests for permission to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to file an appeal against the said order. Dismissed as withdrawn with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the revenue filed the said appeal before the Tribunal, which has been decided by the Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 21.03.2014. The Tribunal took the correct view that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to hear the said appeal which resulted in the order dated 10.06.2013. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:- "2. This is Revenue's Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. CC(A)CUS/352/2013 dated 10.6.2013. Revenue in their grounds of appeal stated that the value of the impugned goods is Rs. 77,25,934/-. This value, which may be subject to revision on the higher side in the final decision/order of the adjudicating authority, is much beyond the threshold value of Rs. 50 lakhs mandated in Circular No.23/2009-Customs dated September 1, 2009 for deciding the rank of the proper officer for adjudication of such cases. The said Circular requires the Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate cases beyond this threshold and hence the Commissioner of Customs is the proper adjudicating authority in such cases. Thus, any appeal against any decision/order taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and the respondent. Order in remand proceedings should be passed within 3 months from the date of passing this order. Ordered accordingly." (underlining added) 12. The Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to pass the order dated 10.06.2013. However, the Tribunal was wrong in remanding the matter to the very same Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to hear the case on merits after having held that he did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal arising out of the orders of provisional release passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). The Tribunal, having once concluded and rightly so that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant, ought to have set aside the order dated 10.06.2013 and decided the matter itself on merits. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, while considering the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), had placed reliance on a Board Circular No. 23/09-Customs dated 01.09.2009. He submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs or by a Joint Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order-in-appeal dated 10.06.2013 did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. 14. As a result of the forgoing discussion, the impugned order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is set aside. The logical consequence of this is that the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal stands allowed. However, the appellant herein is not without a remedy. He may file an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 before the Tribunal. In case such an appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall examine the same on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of filing of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant states that he shall be filing the appeal within one week. 15. The substantial question of law that has arisen in this case stands answered by holding that the Tribunal was not correct in law in remanding the matter to the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
