2015 (3) TMI 70 - AT - Customs

Validity of order passed - Transfer of officer - Confiscation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Held that - The appellants are not agitating against the order passed by the earlier Additional Commissioner; (and they also possibly cannot because the said order was passed after the appellants waived the show cause notice, thereby, in effect, agreeing to not insist on following the principles of Natural Justice); they are only agitating against the aforesaid two additional conditionalities ordered by subsequent Additional Commissioner. - We have already held that the subsequent Additional Commissioner had no authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the earlier Additional Commissioner as he was neither the revisionary authority nor the appellate authority for the latter. Thus the additional conditionalties have no force in law inasmuch as they in effect modify the order of earlier Additional Commissioner for doing which the latter Additional Commissioner had no authority. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion regarding the legal requirement for import license or clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against OIA No. 157/2012/CUS/ Commr.(A)/KDL dated 03.09.2012 - Modification of order by subsequent Additional Commissioner - Conditionalities imposed for release of goods - Authority of subsequent Additional Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The appellants challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, which enhanced the value of goods, imposed penalties, and set conditions for release. They argued that the subsequent Additional Commissioner, who issued the final order, exceeded his authority by adding new conditionalities for the release of goods, which were not part of the original order. The appellants contended that the subsequent Commissioner could not modify the earlier order as he was not an appellate or revisionary authority over the previous Commissioner.

2. The learned Authorized Representative supported the impugned order, stating that the subsequent Additional Commissioner issued the order after hearing the appellants and that the plea regarding the authority to modify the order was not raised by the appellants during the proceedings.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and emphasized that there is no prohibition against raising legal points at any stage of the proceedings. It was acknowledged that the subsequent Additional Commissioner did not have the authority to alter the order of the earlier Commissioner, especially since the latter would have issued a speaking order without the transfer. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were not contesting the original order but were specifically challenging the additional conditionalities imposed by the subsequent Commissioner, which were deemed to be beyond his jurisdiction.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the additional conditionalities imposed by the subsequent Additional Commissioner, emphasizing that those conditions had no legal basis as they effectively modified the original order without proper authority. The Tribunal clarified that its decision did not address the legal requirements for import licenses or clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, focusing solely on the issue of the subsequent Commissioner's overreach in modifying the original order.