2001 (4) TMI 111 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the interpretation of Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, the nature of orders passed under Section 47, the power of the Central Board of Excise & Customs to review such orders, and the requirement of communication of orders to the concerned parties.

Interpretation of Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Best & Crompton Engineering v. C.C., Madras (1997) held that orders passed under Section 47 have quasi-judicial consequences, conferring rights and obligations on both the revenue and the importer. The proper officer must ensure compliance with licensing conditions before allowing clearance, making it a quasi-judicial exercise of power.

Nature of Orders under Section 47:
The importer argued that orders under Section 47 are administrative and not adjudicatory, as no show cause notice was issued before clearance. However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court clarified that such orders have legal consequences and are not merely administrative in nature.

Power of Central Board to Review Orders:
The Central Board of Excise & Customs, u/s 129D of the Customs Act, has the authority to review orders passed under Section 47. The Board can examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of such orders, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

Communication of Orders:
The importer contended that the order was not conveyed to them and was only on the note sheet, citing a case before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. However, the High Court ruled that non-communication of orders does not invalidate the jurisdiction to review, especially when no prejudice is caused to the party.

Decision and Remand:
The Tribunal upheld the view that orders under Section 47 are not administrative and can be reviewed by the Central Board. The Collector of Customs was directed to reconsider the issue of restrictions on the imported goods, beef tallow, from 5-6-1981, as the original order lacked findings on this aspect. The appeals were allowed for remand to the Commissioner of Customs for fresh consideration.