2021 (7) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hecz Republic against the Bill of Entry No. 224 dated 19.11.2014 for the value USD 1,70,000. The said RWT otherwise attract the Customs duty along with the additional duty which worked at Rs. 24,78,015/-. The appellant imported the said RWT under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus dated 09.01.1989 for display in exhibition titled "Clean and Pure Water Resources Exhibition" to be held on 30.10.14 at Yamuna Bank, Near Kalindi Kunj, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. The said notification envisages exemption from payment of customs duty to such goods as are imported for display or use at fair, exhibition, and the goods so imported were required to be re-exported within a period of six months from the date of official closure of the concerned event. The appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest and the penalty under section 117 of Customs Act read with section 112 thereof was also imposed upon the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has also been rejected vide order under challenge. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no show cause notice ever issued upon the appellant containing alleged contravention by the appellant of the notification No. 03/1989. The appellant was diligently seeking time extension which was not considered. Learned Counsel has also submitted that original order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs. He has the power for adjudicating....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to pass the order beyond his limit. Matter may be remanded back for being adjudicated by the competent authority. 4. In rebuttal, learned Counsel has objected the request of remand with the submission that the order was without jurisdiction as non est in law and cannot be sustained. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the record, I observe and held as follows: (i) The appellant imported the container of RWT from Czech Republic on 19.11.2014 for being kept in exhibition as "Container Water Treatment Plant RWT" which was held to be on 13.04.2014. The said import was for promotion and exhibition pur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lity of the circumstances are sufficient for me to hold that the appellant is liable to pay customs duty upon RWT which was imported on the assurance of being used in display for a period and re-export thereafter. 7. However, the original adjudicating authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962, has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter with the value of less than Rs. 5 lakh. Apparently, the value of the impugned matter is beyond Rs. 5 lakh. Also there is nothing on record till date about any delegation of power to the said Deputy Commissioner nor the law has the provision of such delegation. Hence, it is held that Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not competent authority to pass th....