Customs Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notice. Appeals allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice or adjudicate the matter, as only a proper officer designated under the Customs Act could do so. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with any consequential relief to be granted according to the law.

---

---

Issues:
Misuse of Import-Export Pass Book Scheme, violation of ITC restrictions, violation of Customs Act Sections 111(d) and 111(o), jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue show cause notice.

Analysis:
The judgment involved two cases concerning carpet manufacturers/exporters in Varanasi accused of misusing the Import-Export Pass Book Scheme by selling goods duty-free or the passbook itself at a premium, violating ITC restrictions and Customs Act Sections 111(d) and 111(o). Investigations by the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Customs Commissionerate led to a show cause notice in 1991. The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) adjudicated the notice resulting in an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and further show cause notice in 1994. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in Bombay confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 5,07,274, ordered confiscation of dyes, and imposed fines and penalties on the appellants.

The appellant argued that the impugned order and show cause notice lacked jurisdiction as only a proper officer of Customs, not any officer, could issue such notices. Citing a Tribunal judgment in Manohar Bros. v. CC, it was contended that specific functions must be assigned to an officer to be considered a "proper officer" under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the necessity of specific function assignment for officers to issue demand notices, and the Notification No. 58/92-Cus. (N.T.) appointed the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III as the Collector of Customs within his jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, rendering the notice and subsequent adjudication void.

The Tribunal, based on the cited paragraphs, determined that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice or adjudicate the matter concerning imports at Bombay Customs House. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with any consequential relief to be granted according to the law.

---