2010 (8) TMI 239 - HC - Customs

Adjudication by DRI - jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding draw back - Section 5(2) of the Act specifically provides that a higher Officer of the Customs also has the power to perform functions and duties of a lower Officer - person appointed under Section 4(1) of the Act. by virtue of Section 5(2) of the Act has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of a subordinate or a lower authority - the power exercised by the Director of Revenue Intelligence is as stipulated under the Act

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to adjudicate duty draw back dispute.
2. Appealability of the order adjudicating duty draw back to the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to adjudicate duty draw back dispute:

The case involved two assessees challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the Commissioner's order for recovery of draw back amounts due to non-realization of export proceeds within the allowed period. The assessees argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as it was exclusively vested with lower Customs Officers under Rule 16/Rule 16-A of the Customs and Central Excise Draw Back Rules, 1995. The Tribunal held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I) Officers, appointed as Customs Officers, had the power to investigate and adjudicate such disputes, citing Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The assessees contended that adjudication should be done by Assistant Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners of Customs, not the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner's jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the duty draw back dispute.

Issue 2: Appealability of the order adjudicating duty draw back to the Tribunal:

The assessees argued that the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs adjudicating the duty draw back dispute was not appealable to the Tribunal, citing Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Revenue contended that the Commissioner had the authority to investigate, issue show cause notices, and adjudicate such disputes, with appeal provisions under Section 129-A allowing appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority. The Court clarified that the impugned order was not within the Commissioner's appellate jurisdiction but as an Adjudicating Authority, making it appealable to the Tribunal under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 129-A. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contention against the appealability of the order and dismissed both appeals.

---