2022 (6) TMI 506 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - competency of the DRI to issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962 - Whether Tribunal is empowered to remand the case without deciding the issues raised therein on the ground that jurisdiction of the officer to issue show cause notice is under dispute? - HELD THAT - The issues involved herein have been considered and decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. BOX CORRUGATORS AND OFFSET PRINTERS 2020 (5) TMI 475 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that In view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has clearly protected the interest of both the Revenue as well as the Assessee by directing the Assessing Authority to keep the matter pending and maintain status quo till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the appeal of the Revenue in the case of Mangli Impex, filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, as in our opinion, no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to keep the same pending and await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals filed against the decision in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MANGALI IMPEX LTD. 2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER . Petition closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of DRI officers to issue show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act 1962.
2. Tribunal's authority to remand a case without deciding raised issues due to jurisdictional disputes.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged CESTAT's decision to remand appeals based on the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue notices under the Customs Act. CESTAT's decision was influenced by various High Court judgments, including the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of BSNL v. Union of India. The issue revolved around the appointment of DRI officers as proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, with conflicting decisions from different High Courts. The matter was also sub judice before the Supreme Court, leading to uncertainty. The High Court, considering the totality of facts, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for further review post the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex.

2. Previous cases like M/s. Box Corrugators and Offset Printers and Sanket Praful Tolia raised similar issues regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers and the Tribunal's authority to remand cases. While the earlier decision favored maintaining status quo pending the Supreme Court's decision, subsequent judgments, including Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Sanket Praful Tolia, questioned the Tribunal's remand decisions. The High Court, aligning with the latter stance, set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed cases to be kept pending for the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdictional issue. The appellant was prohibited from taking coercive actions against the respondents during this period, leaving the substantial legal questions open for future consideration.

This detailed analysis showcases the legal complexities surrounding the competency of DRI officers and the Tribunal's remand authority in light of conflicting High Court judgments and pending Supreme Court decisions. The judgments cited demonstrate the evolving nature of the legal interpretation in this area, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in addressing jurisdictional disputes under the Customs Act.