2007 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Commissioner of Customs or proper officers subordinate to him are the authorities competent to demand duty short-levied on goods imported - ICRDMEG Rules provide for demand/recovery of concession allowed in duty on goods which are found to have been diverted for other use after import availing concession - The Commissioner of Central Excise, cannot issue a Show Cause Notice containing proposals to be adjudicated by another Commissioner

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise to demand duty on imported goods, Authority to review an order passed by another Commissioner, Interpretation of Customs notifications regarding concessional rates, Powers of Central Excise officers in relation to Customs matters, Competence of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to demand duty on goods imported through Chennai port.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III dropped the proposal to demand duty on imported goods, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to review the order, and the High Court stayed part of the Tribunal's order. The Revenue appealed against the original order, arguing that the Commissioner of Central Excise had the authority to decide on the demand for short levy on goods imported through Chennai port.

2. The respondents contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise did not have the power to demand differential duty on goods cleared through Chennai Customs. They argued that the jurisdictional Commissioner could only demand duty on imported goods if they were diverted from their intended use. The respondents also highlighted that certain notifications clarified the inclusion of BOPP films under concessional rates.

3. The Revenue submitted that all Central Excise officers could exercise Customs powers, and the impugned order was valid. However, the Tribunal analyzed the case records and submissions, concluding that the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, or officers under him had the authority to demand duty on goods imported through Chennai port. The Tribunal emphasized the specific rules and notifications governing the jurisdiction and powers of Customs and Central Excise authorities.

4. The Tribunal clarified that only the proper officer of Customs, Chennai port, could issue and adjudicate proposals for demanding duty on goods imported through Chennai port. It highlighted that the Commissioner of Central Excise could not transfer proceedings to another Commissioner for adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that unless authorized by the Board, only the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, had the competence to issue and adjudicate proposals for demanding duty on imported goods through Chennai port.