9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 441 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 114 (iii) of the CA, 1962 on the CHA/Shipping Lines - alleged drawback fraud committed by concerned exporters - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Held that - The decision in the case of Monte International 2016 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has categorically held that the SCN issued by DRI officers under Rule 16 & 16A of Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995 is without jurisdiction and such SCN is ab initio void. The issue whether SCNs issued by DRI for recovery of drawback under Rule 16 & 16A of the Drawback Rules is valid or not is decided by the Tribunal. On this score, we have no reason to deviate from the decision of the Tribunal in Mante International case cited by the appellant. We are only following the legal maxim sublato fundaments, cadit opus which means in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure is bound to fall. Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, action, orders would fall to the ground automatically. The demands of duty and / or imposition of penalties on the appellants herein which have been confirmed in the impugned orders cannot sustain - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposability of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Rule 16 & 16A of the Drawback Rules, 1995. 3. Jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue SCNs for recovery of drawback. 4. Impact of invalid SCNs on penalties imposed on Custom House Agents (CHAs), shipping lines, and other facilitators. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposability of Penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962: The appeals addressed whether penalties could be imposed on Custom House Agents (CHAs) and shipping lines under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for facilitating alleged drawback fraud committed by exporters. The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties on the appellants for not exercising due diligence and abetting fraudulent claims of drawback by the exporters. 2. Validity of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) Issued by DRI: The SCNs were issued by the DRI under Rule 16 & 16A of the Drawback Rules, 1995, read with Section 75(1) and Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the SCNs were invalid because DRI officers lacked jurisdiction to issue them. They cited the Tribunal's decision in Monte International Vs CC Amristar, which held that SCNs issued by DRI for recovery of erroneously granted drawback under Rule 16 were invalid. 3. Jurisdiction of DRI Officers to Issue SCNs for Recovery of Drawback: The Tribunal in Monte International had categorically held that DRI officers were not the proper officers for issuing SCNs under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal noted that there had been no retrospective amendment to confer such jurisdiction on DRI officers, unlike Section 28 of the Customs Act, which was amended retrospectively to confer jurisdiction on DRI officers for issuing SCNs. Consequently, the SCNs issued by DRI were deemed void ab initio. 4. Impact of Invalid SCNs on Penalties Imposed on CHAs, Shipping Lines, and Other Facilitators: The core issue was whether penalties on CHAs, shipping lines, and other facilitators could sustain when the SCNs against the main offenders (exporters) were invalid. The Tribunal held that the SCNs could not be viewed in isolation and must be considered in their entirety. If the SCNs were invalid for the main offenders, they could not be valid for the co-noticees (appellants). The Tribunal emphasized that penal consequences for abettors could not be adjudged if the main SCNs were void. The principle of 'sublato fundaments, cadit opus' (if the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied, leading to the conclusion that the penalties on the appellants could not sustain. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders to the extent they imposed penalties on the appellants, finding that the SCNs issued by DRI were void ab initio and, consequently, the penalties could not be upheld. All appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Order pronounced in court on 09.01.2018)
|
