9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 488 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Preventive Officers of Customs to act as proper office - power to issue SCN - Held that - It has been ruled by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangli Implex vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the D.R.I. Officers are not competent to issue the show cause notice for the imports made prior to 08.04.2011 - matter remanded to the Original Authority for deciding the issue involved in the present appeals - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Preventive Officers as 'proper officers' for demand proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The judgment dealt with the jurisdiction of Preventive Officers as 'proper officers' for demand proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. It was noted that there had been a dispute regarding the competence of DRI Officers to issue show cause notices for imports made prior to 08.04.2011. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruled in the case of Mangli Implex vs. Union of India that DRI Officers were not competent to issue such notices. Various Tribunal benches, including Delhi, Chennai, and Calcutta, set aside impugned orders and remanded matters for jurisdictional determination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangli Impex further clarified this issue. The Tribunal, in the case of M/s. HR Electronics Vs. Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi, highlighted the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of DRI Officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act, citing relevant legal provisions and amendments post the Supreme Court decision. The judgment discussed the amendments made to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 post the Supreme Court decision and subsequent notifications issued by CBEC assigning functions of 'proper officer' to various officers, including ADG-DRI. The insertion of sub-section 11 under section 28 with retrospective effect was also highlighted. The conflicting decisions of different High Courts, such as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, and Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, were mentioned. The matter eventually reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which granted a stay on the Delhi High Court's judgment, rendering the issue sub judice. The judgment in the case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Union of India and Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Ltd. Vs. DRI (Zonal Unit) were referenced for the contrasting views on the jurisdiction of DRI Officers. Furthermore, the judgment referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI, where the court granted liberty to the petitioner based on the outcome of appeals filed by UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. The Tribunal's decision in Supro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. was also discussed, emphasizing the need to await the apex court's judgment before passing final orders. The Tribunal, in line with previous observations, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Original Authority for further consideration, maintaining status quo in the interim period. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand, awaiting the apex court's decision for final resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
|
