9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 211 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction In Notification No. 30/97-Cus. (N.T.), the Central Government, under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, appointed certain officers as Commissioners , Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners to exercise powers and discharge duties within their respective jurisdictions. In respect of those officers who were appointed as Commissioners of Customs , it was further specified that their jurisdiction would extend to the whole of India. - In Notification No. 83/2004-Cus. (N.T.) also, the Government specified territorial jurisdiction for the officers appointed as Chief Commissioners , Commissioners , Additional Commissioners and Deputy/Asst. Commissioners of Customs . All these Notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Notification No. 31 /2000-Cus. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.), which is central to the present dispute, was also issued by the Central Government under the same provision of law, but this Notification did not specify the area of jurisdiction. SCN held as issued without jurisdiction and set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DGCEI officers to issue show-cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of DGCEI officers under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.). 3. Validity of the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of DGCEI Officers to Issue Show-Cause Notices: The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the DGCEI officers to issue the show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that the officers of DGCEI, Mumbai, were not the proper officers to demand customs duty and seek confiscation of goods or imposition of penalties. They contended that the Deputy Director, DGCEI, lacked the authority to invoke the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of DGCEI Officers: The appellants further argued that the Deputy Director, DGCEI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, had no territorial jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice for imports made through Tuticorin Port. They cited Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.), which did not specify any territorial jurisdiction for DGCEI officers to exercise powers as officers of Customs. The counsel for the appellants asserted that for the Deputy Director to exercise the powers of Deputy Commissioner of Customs in respect of imports through Tuticorin Port, an area comprising Tuticorin should have been specified in the notification. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the DGCEI officers were empowered to issue notices even in respect of goods imported through Tuticorin Port, as there was no territorial limitation imposed on their powers. The respondent relied on CBEC's letter dated 4-12-2007, which clarified that DGCEI officers had all-India jurisdiction in relation to customs matters. 3. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice and Subsequent Proceedings: The Tribunal noted that an identical issue was considered in a previous case (Final Order No. 1136/2008). In that case, it was held that the Additional Director-General of Central Excise Intelligence (ADGCEI) did not have jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice without territorial jurisdiction being specified by the Board under Section 5(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal observed that Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.) did not specify the area of jurisdiction for DGCEI officers to function as "officers of Customs." The Tribunal further noted that the scheme of the Customs Act required both the power to appoint officers and the power to impose conditions and limitations for exercise of powers to be specified. Since the territorial jurisdiction was not demarcated for the ADGCEI by the Central Government or the Board, the ADGCEI did not become a "proper officer" to exercise power under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the absence of territorial jurisdiction specification in the notification implied all-India jurisdiction. It emphasized that a "proper officer" for purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act should have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, which cannot be assumed but must be conferred by the competent authority. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice and the corrigenda thereto were issued without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned proceedings of the Commissioner of Customs were declared ab initio bad in law. All the appeals were allowed on the jurisdictional issue. (Pronounced in open court on 30-10-2008)
|
