2006 (6) TMI 285 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Orders-in-Original for recovery of drawback amounts; Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue Show Cause Notices; Authority of Commissioner to adjudicate cases; Applicability of Drawback Rules; Interpretation of Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appellants exported goods claiming Drawback but failed to receive export proceeds within the allowed period, leading to Show Cause Notices for recovery of drawback amounts and proposed penalties. The Commissioner of Customs passed orders for recovery but dropped penal proceedings. The appeal challenged these orders primarily on the question of jurisdiction, contending that DRI officers lacked authority to issue notices and that adjudication should have been by the Assistant Commissioner, not the Commissioner.

The learned Advocate argued jurisdiction based on Rule 16/16A, citing case laws like M/s. Raza Textiles Ltd. and UOI v. Ram Narain Bishwanath. Conversely, the JCDR referenced Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, empowering officers to act on behalf of subordinates. The Tribunal examined the DRI officers' authority conferred by a Notification superseding previous appointments, clarifying the Central Government's grant of jurisdiction.

Regarding the objection to the Commissioner's adjudication, the Tribunal invoked Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, allowing officers to perform duties of subordinates. The Hukam Chand Shyam Lal case highlighted the necessity of exercising power as prescribed, while the Ramnarain Bishwanath case emphasized jurisdiction based on the location of goods. The Alcobex Metals case illustrated the importance of issuing notices within proper jurisdiction, which was not violated in this instance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants did not contest the non-realization of foreign remittances for export proceeds. It clarified that Drawback Rules cannot supersede Customs Act provisions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals based on the above considerations. The judgment was pronounced on 21-6-2006.