9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 555 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - allegation that Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority for adjudication in view of the Circular dated 31.05.2011 HELD THAT - In the Circular, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs has revised powers of the adjudication of the officers of the Customs. Having perused the clauses (i) and (ii) of Para-5 of the Circular, it is clear that in clause (i) it would be only in case of simple demand of erroneously paid drawback, and where there is a collusion, willful misstatement or suppression, it would be clause (ii) which would be applicable. A perusal of the show cause notice clearly indicates that the petitioner had knowingly classified its goods in a different category in order to avoid duty, and therefore, it would amount to willful misstatement and not a bonafide error. Accordingly, show cause notice ought to have been issued by an authority not below the rank of Additional / Joint Commissioner of Customs as per clause (ii) as the amount of drawback was way beyond ₹ 5.00 lakhs. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice based on competency of adjudicating officer under Circular dated 31.05.2011. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash a show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Customs House, Mundra, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority for adjudication as per a Circular dated 31.05.2011. The Circular specified different levels of adjudication officers based on the amount of drawback involved in the case. The petitioner contended that since the notice alleged misuse of drawback exceeding ?5 lakhs, only the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs could adjudicate, not an officer below that rank. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the case fell under clause (i) of the Circular, making the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs the appropriate adjudicating officer. However, upon examining the clauses of the Circular, the Court found that clause (ii) applied to cases involving willful misstatement or suppression of facts, which was evident in the petitioner's case where goods were deliberately misclassified to evade duty. Consequently, the Court held that the show cause notice should have been issued by an authority not below the rank of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Customs, as the amount of drawback exceeded ?5.00 lakhs. Based on the analysis, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notice dated 23.03.2020. The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice under the signature of the competent authority as prescribed in the Circular of 2011.
|
