2018 (5) TMI 1143 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands case for jurisdictional issues, stresses competence in customs assessments.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to address the jurisdictional issues raised by the ... Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of value - finalization of provisional assessment - Jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue notice for finalisation of assessment - Held that: - Finalization of provisional assessment, and of assessment including re-assessment, under section 17 and 18 of Customs Act, 1962 is within the exclusive competence of the 'proper officer'; in the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Import) has attended to that responsibility and, in doing so, adjudicated a notice issued by Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for, inter alia, finalization of assessment under section 18 of Customs Act, 1962. Considering the criticality of competence to issue show cause notice, the ends of justice will be appropriately met if the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to be decided afresh after the question of jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue notice for finalisation of assessment is settled. Issues:1. Jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue notice for finalization of assessment.2. Competence of officers designated as 'proper officer' under Customs Act, 1962.3. Validity of retrospective validation of show cause notices.4. Principle of finality of litigation in challenging show cause notices.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue IntelligenceThe appellants challenged the jurisdiction of officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to issue a show cause notice for finalization of assessment under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali, which highlighted the lack of competence of such officers to exercise powers conferred on the 'proper officer.' Subsequently, a retrospective validation was introduced in section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to address this issue. The Tribunal noted diverging decisions in High Courts and emphasized the importance of settling the question of jurisdiction before finalizing assessment.Issue 2: Competence of officers as 'proper officer'The Tribunal discussed the exclusive competence of the 'proper officer' under sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 in finalizing provisional assessments and re-assessments. It highlighted that the impugned order was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) following a notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Tribunal underscored the necessity of the 'proper officer' in determining assessments to avoid unauthorized enhancements.Issue 3: Validity of retrospective validationThe Tribunal addressed the constitutionality of the retrospective validation introduced in section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. It referenced various High Court decisions and emphasized the need to uphold the jurisdictional competence of designated officers. The Tribunal highlighted the implications of setting aside orders based on show cause notices lacking proper jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle of finality in litigation.Issue 4: Principle of finality of litigationThe Tribunal examined the principle of finality in litigation concerning challenges to show cause notices. It referenced the decisions of different High Courts and emphasized the doctrine of merger in legal proceedings. The Tribunal stressed the importance of not setting aside orders based on jurisdictional grounds alone, especially when challenges were not raised at the appropriate stages of litigation. It reiterated the need for a balanced approach to uphold the sanctity of legal proceedings while ensuring justice is served.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to address the jurisdictional issues raised by the appellants. The judgment highlighted the significance of competence and jurisdiction in customs assessments and emphasized the need for clarity in legal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the customs valuation process.