2003 (10) TMI 63 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.
2. Validity of the Circular dated 17-12-2002.
3. Right to alternative remedy and substantial justice.
4. Interim relief for the release of goods.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The petitioner contended that the de novo enquiry ordered by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) should be conducted by the Commissioner of Customs, as initially adjudicated, and not by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner argued that the term "de novo enquiry" implies a new hearing by the same authority that conducted the original hearing. The court, however, clarified that as per Section 2(1) and 2(8) of the Customs Act, the term "Commissioner of Customs" includes an Additional Commissioner of Customs, except for the purposes of Chapter XV. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Customs was within jurisdiction to conduct the de novo enquiry and pass the impugned order dated 6-5-2003.

2. Validity of the Circular dated 17-12-2002:
The petitioner challenged the applicability of the Circular dated 17-12-2002, which re-notified the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authorities. The court noted that the Circular was not challenged at any point of time and emphasized that the power of the Government to re-notify jurisdiction is valid unless set aside by law. The court held that the Circular dated 17-12-2002 empowered the Additional Commissioner of Customs to adjudicate the matter, thus validating the impugned order.

3. Right to Alternative Remedy and Substantial Justice:
The petitioner argued that the right to an alternative remedy should not obstruct the delivery of substantial justice, citing decisions from the Apex Court. The court acknowledged this principle but pointed out that the Customs Act itself provides for interim relief, including the release of goods, by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and seek interim relief, ensuring that the apprehension of not receiving substantial justice was unfounded.

4. Interim Relief for the Release of Goods:
The petitioner sought the release of the imported goods, which had been detained for over 18 months. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal and an interim application for the release of goods before the Commissioner (Appeals). The court further instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the interim application and pass appropriate orders within 30 days from the receipt of the appeal and dispose of the main appeal within 90 days.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to seek statutory appeal and interim relief before the Commissioner (Appeals). The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Customs and validated the Circular dated 17-12-2002, ensuring that the petitioner could pursue an alternative remedy to achieve substantial justice. No costs were awarded, and the connected WPMP No. 19856 of 2003 was closed.