2017 (4) TMI 1235 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of the DRI Officers - power to issue SCN - whether the DRI officers were proper officers in terms of section 2(34) of the CA, 1962? - Held that - there are two views holding the field and the matter now stand before the Hon ble Supreme Court. In an earlier case, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandna Impex vs. CC Delhi 2011 (7) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA had remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction - In these circumstances, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction, after the availability of Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangali Impex 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT and then the merits of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of DRI Officers to issue show cause notice under Customs Act.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with three appeals concerning the mis-declaration of value. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued by DRI was improper, citing a High Court decision. The primary issue was the jurisdiction of DRI Officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to argue that DRI officers were not proper officers under the Customs Act. The Customs Act was subsequently amended to address this issue. A notification was issued assigning the function of proper officer to DRI officers, empowering them to issue demand notices. Subsequently, a section was inserted retrospectively, assigning proper officer functions to DRI officers. The issue of DRI officers' jurisdiction was also addressed by various High Courts, with conflicting views. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court. In light of the conflicting decisions, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue first, followed by the merits of the case. This decision was consistent with a previous case where a similar approach was taken, remanding the matter for a decision on jurisdiction post a Supreme Court ruling. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need to clarify the jurisdiction issue before proceeding further.