Customs Tribunal: Jurisdictional Challenge Leads to Set Aside Order

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice after jurisdiction was subsequently assigned to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. The earlier order was deemed non est, and the later assignment of jurisdiction superseded the previous one. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) due to jurisdictional infirmity. The appeals were allowed solely on this basis, leading to the disposal of the stay applications.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdictional question regarding the adjudication of a show-cause notice by two different Commissioners.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 31/2008/CSE/CC/KS dated 31-12-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai in response to a show-cause notice issued by the DRI. Another order, Order-in-Original No. 185/07, dated 18-3-08, was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, in adjudication of the same show-cause notice. The central issue revolved around the jurisdictional question of which Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate the show-cause notice. The Tribunal considered the notifications issued by the Board under Section 4 of the Customs Act, which appointed different Commissioners at different times for adjudication purposes. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the second order of adjudication would be considered non est out of two orders passed at different times. It was observed that the later assignment of jurisdiction impliedly superseded the earlier one, indicating that the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show-cause notice after the subsequent assignment to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) was without jurisdiction, necessitating it to be set aside on grounds of jurisdictional infirmity. Consequently, the appeals were allowed based on this limited ground, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly.

---