Tribunal restores appeal due to error, questions jurisdiction of DRI under Customs Act

The Tribunal recalled the final order passed in the appeal by Revenue due to a procedural error, allowing the appeal to be restored for proper adjudication. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show-cause notices under the Customs Act, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. This decision was made in light of conflicting judgments and pending Supreme Court decision, ensuring fairness and the respondent's right to be heard. Both appeals were remanded for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Recalling of the final order passed in the appeal by Revenue.
2. Jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show-cause notices under the Customs Act.

Issue 1: Recalling of the final order passed in the appeal by Revenue
The respondent filed a miscellaneous application seeking the recall of the Final Order dated 2.1.2017 passed in the appeal by Revenue. The Tribunal had earlier ordered for tagging both appeals against the same impugned order, but due to a lapse on the part of the Registry, the final order was passed ex parte. The respondent's counsel explained the delayed appearance was due to a delayed receipt of the hearing notice. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, decided to recall the final order and restore the appeal to its original number to ensure fairness and proper adjudication.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notices under the Customs Act
The primary issue in the present appeal revolved around the jurisdiction of the DRI to issue show-cause notices under the Customs Act. The respondent argued that based on a Supreme Court decision and subsequent amendments to the Customs Act, DRI officers were not proper officers to issue such notices. The Finance Act, 2011, and subsequent notifications empowered certain DRI officers as proper officers for specific purposes. However, conflicting decisions by various High Courts led to the matter being sub judice before the Supreme Court. Considering the conflicting judgments, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision in a related case, ensuring the respondent's right to be heard and maintaining the status quo until a final decision is reached.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of resolving the jurisdictional issue in light of the pending Supreme Court decision and providing an opportunity for the respondent to present their case on merit.

---