2003 (1) TMI 117 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2001.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2001, based on Para 73C of the Adjudication Manual of the Bombay Customs House. The petitioner argued that only the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was empowered to adjudicate the show cause notice under Para 73C, providing the petitioner with specific appeal rights. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner's adjudication caused prejudice as it limited the appellate remedies available. The petitioner's case relied heavily on Para 73C, which enhanced the adjudication powers of Deputy Collectors in specific cases, including goods imported or exported as baggage.

The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 122 of the Customs Act, which grant unlimited adjudication powers to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. It emphasized that Para 73C of the Adjudication Manual only restricts the Deputy Commissioner's powers, not those of the Commissioner. The court noted the 1984 amendment to Section 129A, which limited appellate remedies for goods imported as baggage. The judgment clarified that Para 73C does not curtail the Commissioner's unlimited adjudication powers under Section 122. It concluded that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice, dismissing the petitioner's argument that Para 73C barred the Commissioner from adjudicating goods imported as baggage.

In summary, the court held that the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) had jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 25th September, 2001, despite the petitioner's challenge based on Para 73C of the Adjudication Manual. The judgment emphasized the distinction between the adjudication powers of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner under Section 122 of the Customs Act and Para 73C. It concluded that the petitioner's contention regarding the Commissioner's jurisdiction lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition with no costs awarded.