2014 (11) TMI 152 - AT - Customs

Customs Appeals: CESTAT Jurisdiction, Verification Error, Provisional Release, Proper Orders

CC. (Preventive), New Delhi Versus Amit Electronics

The Tribunal held that appeals against decisions of the Commissioner of Customs should be with CESTAT, not the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner ... Seizure of goods - Provisional release of goods - Jurisdiction of commissioner - Held that:- order is interim in nature pending final determination of the issue by the adjudicating authority. Reference is also made to latest Mumbai;s judgment in the case of Akanksha Sytax Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C. (General), Mumbai [2012 (11) TMI 878 - CESTAT, Mumbai] - Commissioner (Appeals) has passed order without ascertaining the facts as stated above as well as legal position. Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the provisions of law. I, therefore, set aside this impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) who should pass an appealable order after going through the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue and hearing both appellant and the respondent - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority, Appealability of order, Modification of order by Commissioner (Appeals), Provisional release of seized goods, Legal position under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the value of impugned goods exceeding the threshold mandated in Circular No.23/2009-Customs. The Circular requires cases beyond the threshold to be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal held that any appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Customs should be with CESTAT and not with Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as per Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to support this position, emphasizing that the decision to grant provisional release was taken by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and communicated by an Assistant Commissioner, making it appealable before the Tribunal.Appealability of Order:The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by modifying the order passed by the Commissioner without proper verification of facts. The Commissioner had ordered the appellant to furnish a bond for the full value of the goods, contrary to the requirement of a bank guarantee of 25% of the full value of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order bad in law and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper appealable order after considering the grounds of appeal by the Revenue and hearing both parties.Provisional Release of Seized Goods:The Revenue referred to Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the release of seized goods to the owner pending the order of the adjudicating authority on the condition of providing a bond with security. The Tribunal noted that such orders are interim in nature pending final determination by the adjudicating authority, citing a judgment from Mumbai on a similar issue.Legal Position under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed the order without verifying the facts and legal position. The order was deemed contrary to the provisions of the law, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a proper appealable order within three months.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, the appealability of the order, the provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A, and the necessity for the Commissioner (Appeals) to adhere to legal provisions while passing orders.