TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me functus officio upon passing the order of adjudication dated 18.11.2013. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the said respondent could have filed an appeal against the adjudication order, if it was dissatisfied or aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. It appears that, respondent no.2, has not preferred an appeal - impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.(C) 348/2014 & CM 691/2014 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2015 - MR. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. For The Petitioner : Through: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr Ajay Bhargav, Mr Susmit Pushkar Mr Ayush A. Mehrotra, Advs. For The Respondent : Through: Mr Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr Krishanu Barua, Mr Rahul Kaushik D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here regulations as brought out in Para 10(iv) to Para 10(vi) above. It is not only technical failure, it seems to be intentional failure and the chain of events point to the possibility of smuggling by M/s TNT Express India Pvt. Ltd. Nothing at all has been said, done or suggested which establish the bonafides of the courier company. Therefore, the responsibility of misdeclaration has to be laid at their door.... (emphasis is mine) 2. As would be evident from the extract hereinabove, the explanation vis-a-vis the issue, as to why the petitioner s registration ought not to be revoked in terms of Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (in short the 2010 Regulations), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed before me that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order which is pending with the Tribunal. 3.4 Nearly two months later, that is, after adjudicating upon the show cause notice, vide order dated 18.11.2013, the impugned order was passed by the respondent. This order is dated 10.01.2014. While passing the said order, very same findings were recorded which are subject matter of the adjudication order dated 18.11.2013. In the impugned order, in paragraph 11, following has been recorded: ....11. From the above investigations, the following has been alleged to have emerged:- (i) The name and address of the importer mentioned in the import documents was found to be bogus, showing fraudulent intention for the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The said paragraph, for the sake of convenience, is extracted below: ....10. From the above investigations, the following emerge:- (i) The name and address of the importer mentioned in the import documents was found to be bogus, showing fraudulent intention for the import of the consignment. (ii) The description and value of the consignment was mis-declared with intent to evade payment of Customs duty. (iii) Nobody has claimed ownership of the seized goods. (iv) M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd., did not present the goods for examination although the same was marked for examination by the assessing officer. (v) M/s TNT India Pvt. Ltd., failed to fulfil the obligations stipulated under Regulation 12(iii) and (iv) of the Courier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the 2010 Regulations is appealable, and that, an appeal qua the impugned order lies to the Chief Commissioner, under Regulation 13(2).' 7. According to me, the second submission can be disposed of immediately. The question is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, who passed the impugned order, to act and pass an order, after adjudication had taken place on the show cause notice dated 15.01.2013; which, called upon the petitioner to, inter alia, render explanation vis-a-vis the tentative view of the respondent as to why its registration should not be revoked in terms of the 2010 Regulations. Since, it is a question of lack of jurisdiction, this court under Article 226 of the Constitution can entertain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
