2014 (8) TMI 735 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Provisional release of goods order - Whether the said Tribunal had not erred in law in directing remand of the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) even though the said Tribunal had categorically held that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal - Held that - The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in respect of both the orders dated 03.05.2013 as well as the order dated 17.05.2013 which had been communicated by virtue of the letter dated 21.05.2013. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) disposed of the same by an Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A) CUS/352/2013 dated 10.06.2013 by relaxing some of the conditions. In other words, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was an order passed in favour of the appellant. While doing so, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) noted that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to pass an order therein. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was not at all correct in observing that the Additional Commissioner of Customs was the adjudicating authority in the present case. We have already pointed out above that the provisional release orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 were both passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was wrong in concluding that the appeal fell within the jurisdiction of the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The faulty premise is that the Commissioner of Customs cannot adjudicate a matter which involves duty of less than 50 lacs. The extract of the circular dated 31.05.2011 makes it clear that the Commissioner of Customs has authority to adjudicate all cases without limit. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) acted within his jurisdiction when the orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 were issued by him. The learned counsel for the appellant is factually wrong because the order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and not by an Additional Commissioner of Customs or by a Joint Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order-in-appeal dated 10.06.2013 did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, cannot be accepted - impugned order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to hear the appeal.
2. Correctness of the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
3. Proper authority for adjudication based on monetary limits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to Hear the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the provisional release orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not have jurisdiction because the orders were passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), and any appeal against such orders should lie with the CESTAT as per Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal cited Circular No. 23/2009-Customs dated 01.09.2009, which mandates that cases involving goods valued beyond Rs. 50 lakhs should be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, and any appeal against such decisions should be directed to the CESTAT.

2. Correctness of the Tribunal's Decision to Remand the Matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):
The Tribunal, after concluding that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for a fresh decision. This was challenged as being contradictory. The High Court held that once the Tribunal determined the lack of jurisdiction, it should have set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and decided the matter on its merits itself. The High Court emphasized that remanding the matter to an authority without jurisdiction was incorrect.

3. Proper Authority for Adjudication Based on Monetary Limits:
The appellant argued that the adjudication should be based on the duty involved, referencing Circular No. 24/2011 dated 31.05.2011, which prescribes monetary limits for adjudication based on the amount of duty involved. According to this circular, cases involving duty up to Rs. 50 lakhs should be adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner. However, the High Court clarified that the Commissioner of Customs has the authority to adjudicate all cases without limit, as per the circular dated 31.05.2011. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) acted within his jurisdiction when issuing the provisional release orders.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in determining that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction but erred in remanding the matter back to the same authority. The Tribunal should have set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and decided the matter on merits. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order to remand the matter and allowed the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the provisional release orders. The Tribunal is directed to examine and dispose of the appeal on merits expeditiously. The substantial question of law was answered by holding that the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) after determining the lack of jurisdiction.