2022 (7) TMI 1129 - HC - Customs

High Court sets aside CESTAT's order on Customs Act jurisdiction, awaits Supreme Court decision

The Commissioner of Customs Sea Port-Export Custom House, Chennai Versus M. Priya Kumar, M/s. Aankit Granites Ltd., Rajesh Kumar Garg

The Commissioner of Customs Sea Port-Export Custom House, Chennai Versus M. Priya Kumar, M/s. Aankit Granites Ltd., Rajesh Kumar Garg - TMI Issues Involved:Jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of DRI Officials:- The respondent(s) challenged the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962, claiming that these officials were not designated as proper officers at the relevant time.- The CESTAT, in its order dated 24.10.2017, allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue.- The CESTAT highlighted the amendment in Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, post the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali, 2011, and subsequent notifications empowering DRI officers as proper officers.- The CESTAT considered conflicting decisions of various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court, Mumbai High Court, and High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, on the issue of DRI officers' jurisdiction to issue show cause notices.- The matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, which had granted a stay on the Delhi High Court's judgment.- The High Court of Delhi in a similar case granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of appeals filed in the Supreme Court.- Following the precedent set in similar cases, the High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to await the Supreme Court's decision in the appeals related to the Mangali Impex case.2. Judicial Precedents and Co-ordinate Bench Decisions:- The High Court referred to previous decisions, such as Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Box Corrugators and Offset Printers and Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sanket Praful Tolia, where similar issues were addressed.- In the case of M/s. Box Corrugators and Offset Printers, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to keep the matter pending until the Supreme Court's decision.- However, in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sanket Praful Tolia, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter and directed the Tribunal to keep the appeals pending until the Supreme Court's decision.- The High Court reiterated the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on jurisdiction issues before making a final determination.3. Final Decision and Remand:- In the present case, the High Court, following the latest decision in Sanket Praful Tolia's case, allowed the appeals by setting aside the CESTAT's order and remanded the matters to the Tribunal.- The High Court directed the Tribunal to keep the matters pending and await the Supreme Court's decision in the appeals related to the Mangali Impex case.- The High Court emphasized that no coercive action should be taken by the Revenue against the respondent/assessee until the final decision is reached.- The High Court left the substantial questions of law open and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the jurisdiction of DRI officials to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962, considering various legal precedents and conflicting High Court decisions. The High Court upheld the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on jurisdiction issues before making a final determination, leading to the remand of the matters to the Tribunal.