9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Collector who was directed to make an application under Section 129-D(1) by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, could seek reliefs other than those specified by the Board. 2. Whether a personal penalty can be imposed on a letter of authority holder. 3. Whether the Board, for the purposes of exercising its powers conferred under Section 129-D(1), can take into consideration facts and circumstances which were not existing at the time of adjudication but were subsequently discovered and could seek modification of the order passed by the Collector based on those facts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Scope of Collector's Application under Section 129-D(1) Section 129-D(1) grants the Board the power to examine the records of any proceedings in which a Collector of Customs has passed a decision or order. The Board can direct the Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of specific points arising out of the decision or order. The Collector must adhere strictly to the points specified by the Board. In this case, the Board directed the Collector to seek enhancement of the quantum of redemption fine and the imposition of personal penalty. However, the Collector sought to set aside his order and remand the case for de novo examination, which was beyond the scope specified by the Board. The Tribunal held that the Collector is not competent to seek reliefs other than those specified by the Board, making the Collector functus officio immediately after passing the order as an adjudicating authority. Issue 2: Imposition of Personal Penalty on a Letter of Authority Holder The Tribunal considered whether a personal penalty could be imposed on a letter of authority holder. It was established that the respondents acted within their capacity as letter of authority holders for the import process. The Collector found that the goods were initially covered by a valid license and that the respondents acted without mala fides. The Tribunal held that personal penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act could not be imposed on the respondents as they acted within the scope of their authority and with the knowledge and consent of the license holder, M/s. Literate Wear. Thus, no personal penalty was warranted. Issue 3: Consideration of Subsequent Facts by the Board under Section 129-D(1) The Tribunal examined whether the Board could consider facts and circumstances discovered after the Collector's order to seek modification of that order. The Tribunal held that the Board's power under Section 129-D(1) is confined to the facts and circumstances existing at the time the Collector passed the order. Subsequent discoveries, such as the alleged forgery by the respondents, cannot be used to modify the Collector's order. The Collector's order must be evaluated based on the information available at the time of adjudication. Therefore, the Board cannot take into account subsequent events or facts for exercising its power under Section 129-D(1). Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal fails for the following reasons: - The Collector overstepped his authority by seeking reliefs not specified by the Board. - Personal penalties could not be imposed on the letter of authority holders as they acted within their authorized capacity. - The Board cannot consider subsequent facts or events for modifying the Collector's order under Section 129-D(1). Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the original order by the Collector, including the imposed fine, was upheld without modification.
|
