1998 (6) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Board's power to review the Collector's order under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Timeliness of the application filed by the Board under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Compliance by the Respondent with the export conditions specified by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (CC of I & E).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Board's Power to Review the Collector's Order:
The primary issue raised was whether the Board had the authority to review the Collector's order under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal concluded that the Board did not have the power to review the Collector's order, as the order in question was not an adjudication order but an administrative decision. According to Section 129D(1), the Board can only review decisions or orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the Collector's order was based on a note sheet and was not a formal adjudication process involving a show cause notice, personal hearing, or an independent application of mind. The Tribunal referenced the case of Collector of Customs v. Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (1988 (37) E.L.T. 610) to support its conclusion that the Board's review was not valid.

2. Timeliness of the Application Filed by the Board:
The second issue was whether the application filed by the Board under Section 129D(4) was within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal found that the application was indeed filed within the three-month period specified by the Customs Act. The application was received on 31-10-1990, which was within three months from the date of the review order (1-8-1990). The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's contention that the application was time-barred.

3. Compliance by the Respondent with Export Conditions:
The third issue was whether the Respondent complied with the export conditions specified by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (CC of I & E). The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was granted permission to export sub-assemblies containing color picture tubes, with a minimum value addition of 40% and indigenous content of not less than 15%. The Respondent exported the color picture tubes as imported, without carrying out any manufacturing activity, and sought permission to export the indigenous components separately. The Tribunal observed that the permission granted by the CC of I & E did not explicitly require the mounting of picture tubes with indigenous components before export. The Tribunal found that the Respondent's interpretation of the export permission was correct and that there was no violation of the export conditions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Board was not competent to review the Collector's administrative order under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the application filed under Section 129D(4) was not tenable. The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's contention and rejected the application. The cross-objection filed by the Respondent was disposed of accordingly.