AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recovery of duties of customs nor about confiscation of goods pending for clearance upon import but founded upon the premise that the goods, i.e. coal imported by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd and M/s Rosa Power Supply Co Ltd not leviable to duties to the extent discharged by them and, thereby, deserving penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 as well as under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 not only on the importer but also on several other persons as could be brought within the ambit of those intended to be covered by those respective provisions upon confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 relating to value, were amenable to scrutiny and revision by recourse to mechanism of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 without touching assessment undertaken on the bills of entry. The present respondent is one such incidental noticee even though, and admittedly, he had nothing to do with processing of the impugned goods after being unloaded at port of discharge. 2. The respondent did not participate in proceedings before the adjudicating authority; neither was the proceedings put on hold for that reason nor were any effort....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred application for 'awakening the sleeping dog' in view of extreme prejudice caused to him in a closed matter that, for some, remained unclosed. 4. Allegedly, the respondent was detained on arrival in India basis 'lookout circular' purportedly issued in circumstances of either non-cooperation with the investigation or non-participation in the proceedings. The details are sketchy, the cause for detention of the respondent is not on record, the representative of the appellant-Commissioner was unable to throw light and we only have the submission on behalf of the respondent that he is unaware of any matter of investigation by customs authorities involving him. That may or may not be; but if it is, the existence of this inconsequential appeal with no leg to stand on, let alone survive, should not be licence to infringe the rights of a person and nor should that be cause for encroachment thereto by a public authority. Accordingly, the plea for 'out of turn' disposal of the appeal was allowed and, considering the extraordinary circumstances of extreme gravitas and with consent of both sides, the appeal was taken up for disposal. 5. It is common ground that, in the light of dismis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f authorities higher to them in the appellate heirarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities; The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws. 8. We have dealt with this aspect at some length, because it has been suggested by the learned A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lidated through a process known to law. 8. At all events, it is well-known that 'look out circulars' are not an instrument governed by the statute; it is an instrument of convenience enabling the authorities at the border to detain 'person of interest' as an agency of the statutory authority empowered to require the presence of the particular person. Consequently, there is salutary responsibility to permit its existence only so far as it does not interfere with legal process and every whit of responsibility devolves on the requisitioning authority to keep the border agency abreast of the legal developments. Failing to do so is dereliction of duty especially as it is the State which has to bear the consequences of any illicit interference. The continuance of such requisition is a matter of concern as the border agency is forced to interfere with the liberty of an individual in the belief that the reasons for detention exist; it is that authority which is, perforce, made answerable. The existence of an appeal at the instance of Committee of Chief Commissioners does not, ipso facto, exhume a closed proceeding, let alone resurrect an investigation that concluded with issue of show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment through Act 13 of 2018 with effect from 28th March 2018 whereas the impugned goods had been imported between 2011 and 2015. Accordingly, he submitted that the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction in proposing to penalise the respondent and that the issue of 'look out circular' was void ab initio with the interdiction of the person an illegal act. 10. Ex facie, we have no hesitation in holding that charges could not have been framed under section 124 against the respondent. We have perused the show cause notice as well as the review order leading to this appeal; nowhere is it to be found that the respondent was responsible personally, or that the company that he, purportedly, was an official in were, for any act in the territory of India in connection with the goods or any declaration/submission in relation to the impugned goods. Not only is it accepted law that offences or contraventions cannot be retrospectively legislated but also that, in such circumstances of extension of jurisdiction beyond the territory of India, arrogating of jurisdiction cannot be in breach of legislative restraint conditioned by the Constitution in Article 37 read with Article 51. The ....