9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 542 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction of the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - Fraudulent advance authoritsation - Seizure of goods sold on high sea sale - determine ownership of the goods - levy of penalty on CHA - levy of penalty on the high sea sellers - Held that - It may be stated that operation of the judgment in the case of Mangali Impex 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT has been stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mangali Impex Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT and the Hon ble Court is seized of the matter. Tribunal being creature of the statute, is subordinate to the Hon ble Supreme Court and it should not overreach to the Jurisdiction of higher court following the principle laid down in Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. - 2004 (2) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid preliminary issue of Jurisdiction raised by Assesses, except reiterating the law of the land and judicial pronouncement as above, we are compelled to remand the appeals hereafter state by this order, to learned Adjudicating Authority to reach to his decision on the basis of outcome of the civil appeal in Mangli Impex and granting fair opportunity of hearing to both sides shall pass appropriate order. - Matter remanded back.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue SCNs. 2. Determination of the importer and ownership of goods. 3. Imposition of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Provisional release of goods. 5. Consistency in adjudication between past and live consignments. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of DRI Officers to Issue SCNs: The jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, prior to 08.04.2011, was challenged. The Tribunal referenced the judgment in *Mangli Impex* which held that DRI officers were not "proper officers" for issuing SCNs before this date. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the *Mangli Impex* judgment, implying that the matter is still under judicial consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the appeals to the adjudicating authority to decide based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in *Mangli Impex*. 2. Determination of the Importer and Ownership of Goods: The Tribunal directed that the adjudicating authority should independently determine the importer and ownership of goods without adopting findings from the original adjudication. The adjudicating authority had inconsistently determined that M/s. Ravi Enterprises was the importer for live consignments but held high sea sellers as co-importers for past consignments. This inconsistency necessitated a fresh adjudication. 3. Imposition of Penalties Under Section 114A: Revenue appealed for the imposition of penalties under Section 114A on various entities. The Tribunal noted that penalties could not be imposed jointly and severally under the Customs Act, 1962, and referenced several judicial precedents to support this. The Tribunal remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that penalties should be imposed based on individual culpability and evidence. 4. Provisional Release of Goods: The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had failed to decide on the provisional release of goods as directed by the Tribunal in its previous order. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have first determined the provisional release before proceeding with the merits of the case. 5. Consistency in Adjudication Between Past and Live Consignments: The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had inconsistently applied findings between past and live consignments. For example, M/s. Ravi Enterprises was held as the importer for live consignments but not for past consignments. The Tribunal directed that the adjudicating authority should re-evaluate the evidence and ensure consistent application of findings across all consignments. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed appeals that were not represented and allowed Revenue's appeals for penalties where respondents did not contest. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal remanded the cases to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, ensuring fair hearing and independent evaluation of evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough enquiry and consistent application of the law to ensure justice.
|
