2017 (9) TMI 328 - AT - Customs

Tribunal sets aside jurisdiction orders under Customs Act, 1962, remands matter for further adjudication.

M/s. AMEX India, Commr. of Customs (Port) & (Prev.) W.B., Kolkata, Sri Madan Mohan Versus Commr. of Customs (Port) & (Prev.) W.B., Kolkata, Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Jai Viksu Niketan Pvt. Ltd., A.S. Traders

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders concerning the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962. The matter ... Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that: - the notice issued by the DRI who was not a competent authority as per the ratio laid down in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. UOI [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - In this connection, we note that similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962 prior to April 2011.Analysis:The appeals were against impugned orders resulting from proceedings initiated by the issuance of Show Cause cum Demand Notice by DRI/Commissioner of Customs(Prev.). The powers of officers in these organizations to issue notices under the Customs Act, 1962 were in question. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the issue of jurisdiction of DRI officers was discussed. The Tribunal noted the amendment of section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 in 2011 and the subsequent notification assigning the functions of proper officer to various officers, including Additional Director General, DRI. The Tribunal highlighted conflicting decisions of various High Courts regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which granted a stay on the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar case and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision and then proceed on the merits of the case, ensuring the assessee is heard. The impugned orders were set aside, and the status quo was to be maintained.In view of similar cases with the same legal question, the Tribunal followed a similar course of action. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority to decide the jurisdiction issue first, followed by a decision on the merits after the Supreme Court's decision in pending appeals by the Revenue. The status quo was to be maintained during this interim period. All impugned orders were set aside and remanded back to the original authorities for further proceedings.