High Court clarifies jurisdiction under amended Customs Act, directs Tribunal to assess independently

The High Court addressed the competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, considering conflicting judicial opinions and previous judgments. Referring to pending issues before the Supreme Court, the Court directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to independently assess jurisdiction and decide the appeal on merits, including penalties, following a similar approach in a previous case. The appeal was allowed in part, with instructions for the Tribunal to proceed after issuing notice to the respondent.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dichotomy of judicial opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
3. Previous judgments of the Delhi High Court influencing the decision-making process.
4. Remand order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
5. Consideration of pending issues before the Supreme Court.
6. Imposition of penalty and the right of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of competence and jurisdiction under the amended Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue's grievance stemmed from the CESTAT remanding issues for reconsideration by the concerned Commissioner due to conflicting judicial opinions. The Court referred to previous judgments, including one in Mangli Impex Limited v. Union of India, and another in Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., highlighting the dichotomy of views regarding the jurisdiction of the DRI.

2. The Court noted that the issues were pending consideration before the Supreme Court, citing another order in Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. In that order, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits without being influenced by the judgment in the Mangli Impex Limited case, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.

3. Considering the submissions and material on record, the High Court concluded that an identical approach was necessary in the present case. Following the order in Forech India, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the CESTAT to independently assess the question of jurisdiction and decide the appeal on merits, including the imposition of any penalties. The appeal was allowed in part, with a specific instruction for the Tribunal to proceed only after issuing notice to the respondent.

---