2007 (3) TMI 490 - AT - Customs

Customs Duty Jurisdiction Issue: Waiver & Recovery Stay Granted

The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a case where a show-cause notice demanding over Rs. 3.83 crores in customs duty was ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and penalty Issues:Jurisdictional challenge against show-cause notice by DGCEI, Mumbai; Interpretation of Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (NT) and Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (NT); Appointment of officers of DGCEI as officers of Customs; Validity of show-cause notice issuance; Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.Jurisdictional Challenge Against Show-Cause Notice:The impugned order demanded over Rs. 3.83 crores towards customs duty from the appellants based on a show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Zonal Unit, Mumbai, regarding imports through Tuticorin Port. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin adjudicated the dispute, upholding the jurisdiction of the DGCEI to issue the notice. The appellants challenged the jurisdictional basis of the notice, arguing that officers of DGCEI lacked nationwide jurisdiction to initiate proceedings related to imports into India. The Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order despite this challenge.Interpretation of Notifications:The appellant's counsel cited Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (NT) and Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (NT) to support the argument that only specific officers, such as the Commissioner of Customs, Additional/Joint Commissioner, or Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Customs in Tuticorin, had the authority to issue a show-cause notice concerning the case, based on pecuniary limitations. On the other hand, the respondent argued that DGCEI officers were appointed as officers of Customs for the entire country under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (NT). However, the Tribunal found no specific notification appointing DGCEI officers as officers of Customs for the entire country, emphasizing the territorial limits set by Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (NT) for officers in Tuticorin.Appointment of DGCEI Officers as Officers of Customs:The respondent contended that DGCEI officers were appointed as officers of Customs for the entire country under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (NT). However, the Tribunal noted that no notification appointing DGCEI officers as officers of Customs for the entire country was presented. Instead, the Tribunal highlighted Notification No. 15/2002-Cus. (NT), which specified territorial limits for officers in Tuticorin, indicating that the show-cause notice in question might have been issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction over the case.Validity of Show-Cause Notice Issuance:The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery regarding duty and penalty amounts, primarily due to the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellants. The Tribunal found the contention that the show-cause notice was issued by an officer without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case to be valid, leading to the decision to grant the waiver and stay of recovery.Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Stay of Recovery:Considering the significant stake involved in the case and the eagerness of the respondent to challenge the appellants' jurisdictional argument, the Tribunal decided to expedite the appeals, scheduling them for a prompt hearing on 30-4-07 to address the jurisdictional issues efficiently.