2018 (4) TMI 1655 - CGOVT - Customs

Government rejects Revision Applications challenging Customs penalty for short landing goods. Importance of compliance and jurisdiction emphasized.

IN RE : MSC AGENCY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

The Government rejected the Revision Applications filed by M/s. MSC Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Orders-in-Original by the Commissioner of Customs ... Imposition of penalty - short landing of goods - Section 129DD(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- On examination of the preamble to the orders-in-original, it is noticed that the original advice to the applicant was that an appeal against these orders lies to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is outrightly wrong. But this error has not been corrected even subsequently by issuing proper corrigenda by the adjudicating authority by directing the applicant to file an appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in the light of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact, instead of correcting the mistake, another error has been committed by issuing non-signed corrigenda by the Assistant Commissioner and by directing the applicant to file a revision application before the Government without appreciating Section 129A. Thus, while it is true that the applicant was misguided to file the present revision application by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs before Government, this fact cannot negate the vital legalreality that the Government does not have jurisdiction - Revision application dismissed. Issues Involved:Jurisdiction of Central Government to entertain revision applications against orders of Commissioner of Customs (Port) regarding penalty for short landing of goods.Analysis:The judgment pertains to Revision Applications filed by M/s. MSC Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. against Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs for short landing of goods. The applicant requested an early hearing, which was attended by their advocates. However, no representative appeared for the respondent, who submitted written submissions. The Government observed that the revision applications were filed without the mandatory fee of Rs. 1000 each, rendering them improperly filed as per Section 129DD(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.Furthermore, it was noted that the revision applications were against orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs, not the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as required by Section 129DD read with Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government highlighted that its jurisdiction is limited to dealing with revision applications against orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) involving issues like baggage, short landing, or drawback of duty. The Government found that the corrigenda provided by the applicant were unsigned by the relevant authority, indicating a lack of proper direction for filing appeals. Despite errors in the initial advice to the applicant regarding appeal procedures, the adjudicating authority failed to correct these mistakes, leading to the applicant being misguided to file revision applications before the Government.Consequently, the Government rejected the revision applications due to the improper filing without the requisite fee and the lack of jurisdiction to entertain revision applications against orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Port) for penalty related to short landing of goods. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the correct appellate procedures to ensure the proper jurisdiction of the concerned authorities in legal matters.