Invalidation of Customs Commissioner's Jurisdiction Over Bills of Entry; Proper Officers Retain Authority

The Tribunal invalidated the initial show cause notice for being issued beyond the statutory period and determined that subsequent notices based on the same evidence were also invalid. It held that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) lacked jurisdiction to determine liabilities on pending Bills of Entry, which fell under the purview of the proper officers of the Mumbai Customs House. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of the "committee of courts," ruling that the proper officers retained authority over assessments and confiscations. Consequently, duty demands and penalties were set aside, and pending Bills of Entry were remitted for assessment by the proper officers, disposing of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice.
2. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai.
3. Authority to Assess and Confiscate Goods.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The initial show cause notice dated 28-8-91 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs was deemed invalid as it was issued beyond the six-month period stipulated u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and should have been issued by the Collector of Customs. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the order based on this invalidity but allowed for a fresh notice to be issued if permissible. A subsequent show cause notice dated 4-3-1994 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai, invoking the extended period based on the same evidence. However, the Tribunal found that a second show cause notice on identical facts invoking the extended period was invalid, following the precedent set in Delux Carpet Co. & Ors. v. CC (Prev.), Mumbai. Therefore, the proceedings based on the invalid notice were considered bad ab initio.

2. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai:
The appellants contested the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, to issue demands and determine assessments on the Bills of Entry. The Tribunal found substantial force in the appellants' arguments, citing multiple case laws that emphasized the necessity for demands u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to be made by the 'proper officer.' The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) did not have the jurisdiction to determine liabilities and make assessments on the pending Bills of Entry, as these were within the purview of the proper officers of the Mumbai Customs House.

3. Authority to Assess and Confiscate Goods:
The Tribunal upheld the principle of "committee of courts," which posits that when multiple authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, the authority that first takes cognizance retains jurisdiction. In this case, the proper officers of the Mumbai Customs House had already taken cognizance of the imports and assessments. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) could not usurp this authority without a transfer order from the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders for confiscation and penalties, remitting the pending Bills of Entry to the proper officers for assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the duty demands and penalties, directing that the pending Bills of Entry be assessed by the proper officers of the Mumbai Customs House. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---