Single Member Bench jurisdiction upheld where compounding rejection, not duty or penalty quantum, was the real dispute.

Jurisdiction under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on whether the appeal directly concerns rate of duty, assessable value, or the quantum of fine or penalty. A dispute over rejection of compounding applications as premature and not maintainable was held to fall outside that category, so a Single Member Bench could hear the appeals and connected applications. The interim order could not be recalled for inherent lack of jurisdiction because the bench was competent to deal with the matter; however, the restraint on coercive steps was treated as having served its limited purpose and was discontinued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeals and connected miscellaneous applications arising from rejection of the compounding applications; whether the interim order dated 21.03.2016 suffered from any inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to warrant recall; and whether the direction restraining coercive steps against the applicants should continue.

Issue (i): Whether the Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeals and connected miscellaneous applications arising from rejection of the compounding applications.

Analysis: The jurisdictional test under Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on whether the dispute has a direct or proximate relation to the rate of duty, value for assessment, or the quantum of fine or penalty involved. The dispute here was not about the assessable value, duty rate, or drawback quantum as such, but about the correctness of the order rejecting the compounding applications as premature and not maintainable. The issue therefore fell outside the category requiring a Division Bench.

Conclusion: The Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeals and miscellaneous applications.

Issue (ii): Whether the interim order dated 21.03.2016 suffered from any inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to warrant recall, and whether the restraint on coercive steps should continue.

Analysis: Recall is permissible only where the earlier proceedings suffer from patent inherent lack of jurisdiction. Since the Single Member Bench was competent to hear the matter, the interim order could not be recalled on that ground. The order also did not prevent investigation or the issuance of summons and show cause notice, and the earlier direction against coercive steps had served its limited purpose in the changed procedural setting.

Conclusion: The interim order was not liable to be recalled, but the direction against coercive steps was discontinued.

Final Conclusion: The request for recall failed on jurisdictional grounds, while limited ancillary relief was granted and the pending matters were directed to be placed before the Division Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 129C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, jurisdiction depends on the direct subject matter of the appeal, and a dispute concerning rejection of compounding applications is not transformed into a Division Bench matter merely because it arises from an underlying customs investigation involving higher monetary stakes.

---