TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2016 as annexed on the record shows that while seeking the time extension the appellants were repeatedly acknowledging that in case of failure to re-export within the time extended, the appellants shall be depositing the requisite customs duty along with interest. Further extension was not granted to the appellant despite that said RWT has not been re-exported till date. The original adjudicating authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962, has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter with the value of less than ₹ 5 lakh. Apparently, the value of the impugned matter is beyond ₹ 5 lakh. Also there is nothing on record till date about any delegation of power to the said De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion titled Clean and Pure Water Resources Exhibition to be held on 30.10.14 at Yamuna Bank, Near Kalindi Kunj, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The said notification envisages exemption from payment of customs duty to such goods as are imported for display or use at fair, exhibition, and the goods so imported were required to be re-exported within a period of six months from the date of official closure of the concerned event. The appellants had not re-exported the same within six months. However, vide letter dated 19.05.2014, importers prayed for the extension of period for re-export. The request was accepted and the time was granted upto 19.11.2015 by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Customs. After the expiry of said period also, the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no show cause notice ever issued upon the appellant containing alleged contravention by the appellant of the notification No. 03/1989. The appellant was diligently seeking time extension which was not considered. Learned Counsel has also submitted that original order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs. He has the power for adjudicating the matter of the preliminary limit of ₹ 5 lakh. Since the demand herein is much above ₹ 5 lakh, the order in original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is without jurisdiction, hence the order is non-est. The said statement was made before the Commissioner (Appeals) also. But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission that the order was without jurisdiction as non est in law and cannot be sustained. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record, I observe and held as follows: (i) The appellant imported the container of RWT from Czech Republic on 19.11.2014 for being kept in exhibition as Container Water Treatment Plant RWT which was held to be on 13.04.2014. The said import was for promotion and exhibition purpose. Accordingly, same was imported under notification No. 03/1989 dated 09.01.1989. In terms thereof, the RWT was to be re-exported within six months from the date of closure of event. Admittedly, the appellant could not re-export the same within the required period. Hence requested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962, has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter with the value of less than ₹ 5 lakh. Apparently, the value of the impugned matter is beyond ₹ 5 lakh. Also there is nothing on record till date about any delegation of power to the said Deputy Commissioner nor the law has the provision of such delegation. Hence, it is held that Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not competent authority to pass the order in original dated 19.5.2016, Commissioner (Appeals) should also have considered the plea of jurisdiction as was taken before him. Since the order passed without jurisdiction is not sustainable in law as being non-est, none of these orders are sustainable. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
