2017 (9) TMI 602 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - penalty u/s 114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962 - natural justice - Held that - The impugned order deals with details as to the manner of assumption of jurisdiction and why the adjudicating authority is arriving at the conclusions returned. Reasons are the link between the factual position and the conclusions drawn with regard thereto. The conclusions drawn are supported by reasoning given in the body of the impugned order. On a reading of the impugned order as aforesaid it cannot be said that the adjudicating authority had acted without jurisdiction in imposing penalty under Section 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order in original by Assistant Commissioner of Customs beyond jurisdiction and principles of natural justice.

The judgment involves a challenge to an order in original issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Adjudication Cell, Customs House, Kolkata. The petitioners argue that the adjudicating authority exceeded jurisdiction by imposing a penalty under Section 114A without providing reasons and breaching principles of natural justice. They claim that documents crucial to the case were not made available to them during the adjudication process. On the other hand, the revenue contends that the petitioners did not request these documents during the proceedings and had submitted written responses. The High Court examines the contentions of both parties and the materials on record.

The Court notes that the impugned order is appealable, but the petitioners chose not to appeal. The grounds for interference with an order under a statute include breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, perversity, fraud, bias, or being non-speaking. The Court emphasizes that it should not function as a first appellate authority when an appeal is available but not pursued. The impugned order is reasoned, addressing show cause notices, responses, and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's findings regarding export activities of the petitioner. The Court observes that the petitioners did not request the disputed documents during the hearing, and the revenue argues that the petitioners were aware of these documents but did not seek them during the adjudication process.

Regarding the lack of jurisdiction, the petitioners raise concerns about the penalty imposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court analyzes the impugned order's justification for assuming jurisdiction and imposing penalties, finding that the conclusions are supported by reasoning and not without jurisdiction. The Court concludes that there is no merit in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismisses it without costs. The parties can obtain certified copies of the order upon compliance with formalities.