2023 (5) TMI 22 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of proper officer to issue SC - impugned proceedings beyond limitation or not - HELD THAT - The impugned order-in-original is an appealable order under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Though such an appeal is required to be filed within three months from the date on which the order appealed against is communicated, CESTAT may admit the appeal after expiry of the limitation period if it is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period. It would be more appropriate if the petitioner avails the statutory remedy provided under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. All contentions are kept open. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to customs duty, duty exemption, confiscation, imposition of fines and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, and the legality of the order-in-original passed by the authorities.

Customs Duty and Confiscation:
The order-in-original dated 18.01.2023 confirmed the demand of customs duty on multiple entities, including Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation Limited, HDFC Bank Limited, State Bank of India, and Diamond India Limited, under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, duty-free gold bullion imported by these entities was held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, with redemption fines imposed in lieu of confiscation. Penalties were also levied on these entities under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, while no penalties were imposed under Section 114A.

Interest Payment and Appropriation:
The order-in-original also confirmed the demand for payment of interest on the duty amount payable by the entities from the date of utilization of duty exemption till the date of payment under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The amounts paid by the entities were held appropriated against the duty short paid, and in some cases, against the interest payable.

Penalties Imposed on Individuals:
Apart from the entities, penalties were imposed on individuals associated with M/s. PH Jewels under different sections of the Customs Act. Smt. Radhika Agarwal, Proprietrix of M/s. PH Jewels, faced penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA, while Shri Sanjay Agarwal of M/s. PH Jewels faced penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA. No penalties were imposed on other individuals associated with Customs House, Kolkata.

Jurisdiction and Appeal:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice preceding the order-in-original was not issued by the proper officer, which allegedly vitiated the proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the impugned proceedings were beyond limitation and lacked jurisdiction. However, the court held that the impugned order-in-original was appealable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, before CESTAT. The court suggested that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 129A, allowing for appeal even after the expiration of the limitation period under certain circumstances.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before CESTAT under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The court kept all contentions open and closed any pending miscellaneous applications, with no order as to costs.