2021 (7) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Seeking extension of period for re-export - import of Container of Water treatment plant under N/N. 3/1989-Cus dated 09.01.1989 - pecuniary jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the appellant could not re-export the imported container within the required period. Hence requested for time extension for another six months - The appellant could not meet the extended time limit as well. Hence sought another time extension on the ground that the RWT is required for event at Varanasi to be demonstrated over a period of two months. Letter dated 15.3.2016 as annexed on the record shows that while seeking the time extension the appellants were repeatedly acknowledging that in case of failure to re-export within the time extended, the appellants shall be depositing the requisite customs duty along with interest. Further extension was not granted to the appellant despite that said RWT has not been re-exported till date. The original adjudicating authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962, has the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter with the value of less than ₹ 5 lakh. Apparently, the value of the impugned matter is beyond ₹ 5 lakh. Also there is nothing on record till date about any delegation of power to the said Deputy Commissioner nor the law has the provision of such delegation. Hence, it is held that Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not competent authority to pass the order in original dated 19.5.2016, Commissioner (Appeals) should also have considered the plea of jurisdiction as was taken before him. Since the order passed without jurisdiction is not sustainable in law as being non-est, none of these orders are sustainable. The matter remanded to the department for being placed before the competent authority for the appropriate adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of Water Treatment Plant for exhibition under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus.
2. Failure to re-export the imported goods within the stipulated time period.
3. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass the order.

Issue 1: Import of Water Treatment Plant for exhibition under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus.
The appellant imported a Water Treatment Plant (RWT) from Czech Republic under Notification No. 3/1989-Cus for display at an exhibition. The notification required re-export of the goods within six months from the closure of the event. The appellant failed to re-export the RWT within the specified period and requested extensions, citing various reasons for the delay. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's liability to pay customs duty arose due to the failure to re-export the goods as per the notification's conditions.

Issue 2: Failure to re-export the imported goods within the stipulated time period.
Despite multiple extension requests, the RWT was not re-exported within the extended time frame, leading to a contravention of the notification's provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's acknowledgment of the duty payment obligation in case of failure to re-export within the granted extensions. This failure to comply with the re-export requirement rendered the appellant liable to pay the customs duty on the imported RWT.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass the order.
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the original adjudicating authority, passed an order confiscating the RWT and imposing duties, interest, and penalties on the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction is limited to cases with a value of less than ?5 lakh. Since the value of the matter exceeded this limit, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was deemed without jurisdiction and non-est in law. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered this jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant. Consequently, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) were declared unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, while affirming the appellant's liability to pay customs duty, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the department for adjudication by the competent authority within the pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellant was granted one month to discharge the liability, failing which the order of remand would take effect. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand for re-adjudication by the competent original Adjudicating Authority.