2002 (2) TMI 572 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional competence of the officer issuing show cause notice

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Competence of the Officer:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the jurisdictional competence of the officer issuing the show cause notice. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was not valid as it was issued by an Assistant Collector from Bombay, while the goods were imported at Cochin port. The appellant contended that the proper officer must be within the jurisdictional Collectorate where the import occurred. Reference was made to a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka emphasizing the importance of the proper officer being able to compute the extent of non-levy, short-levy, or erroneous refund. The appellant highlighted that the officer issuing the notice must have the authority to determine the amount specified in the notice, acting as a ceiling for the subsequent adjudication process. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, citing the Karnataka High Court decision that stressed the necessity for the proper officer to be within the jurisdictional Collectorate where the import took place. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector from Bombay was not the proper officer to issue the show cause notice in this case, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.

2. Procedural Aspect:
The respondent raised a procedural objection, arguing that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. However, the appellant clarified that the jurisdictional issue was indeed raised before the Addl. Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals), as reflected in the respective orders. The Tribunal acknowledged that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, as it goes to the root of the matter. Despite the procedural objection raised by the respondent, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of addressing jurisdictional concerns at any point during the legal process. Ultimately, the Tribunal focused on the substantive jurisdictional argument raised by the appellant and found merit in the contention that the proper officer must align with the jurisdictional Collectorate where the import occurred, leading to the favorable decision for the appellant based on this crucial jurisdictional aspect.