2002 (3) TMI 119 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority
2. Requirement of prior clearance from the Development Commissioner
3. Issuance of show cause notice and demand of duty
4. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties
5. Cross-examination and principles of natural justice
6. Barred by limitation

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:

The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and adjudicate the matter as both the import and export took place through ICD, Tughlakabad (TKD), New Delhi. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi, should have adjudicated the case. The Revenue countered that Notification No. 27/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-7-1997, issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, appointed officers of Customs for Delhi, including the Commissioner of Customs (General). The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, was competent to adjudicate the matter as per the notification and the jurisdiction rested with the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.

2. Requirement of Prior Clearance from the Development Commissioner:

The appellant argued that the entire proceedings were barred by jurisdiction as the Department did not obtain clearance from the Development Commissioner before raising the demand. The Tribunal referred to Board's Circular No. 122/95-Cus., dated 20-11-1995, which required consultation with the Development Commissioner for issues like the fulfilment of export obligations. However, the Tribunal noted that prompt action for issuance of show cause notice was necessary in cases involving gross violations like illicit removal. The Tribunal found no substance in the appellant's submission and upheld the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority.

3. Issuance of Show Cause Notice and Demand of Duty:

The appellant contended that no separate show cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act was issued, making the demand of duty invalid. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued to Rakesh Kumar Bhagat, proprietor of Friendly Video Vision, and the proceedings were initiated against him. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument, stating that the show cause notice and demand of duty were valid.

4. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties:

The appellant argued that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Customs Act and that the imposition of penalties was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the charges against the appellant pertained to the violation of the conditions of Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997, which provided exemption from customs duty for raw materials imported for manufacturing articles for export by 100% E.O.U. The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, to adjudicate the matter and impose penalties.

5. Cross-examination and Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant contended that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice as they were not allowed to cross-examine the Technical Expert and other witnesses. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue relied on the opinion of the Station Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi, and that cross-examination should have been allowed. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after allowing the cross-examination of the Station Engineer and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

6. Barred by Limitation:

The appellant argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation as the goods were detained on 22-9-1998, and the show cause notice was served on 27-3-1999, beyond the six-month period. The Tribunal held that the six-month period should be reckoned from the date of detention, which was 28-9-1998, making the show cause notice within the time limit. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contention regarding the limitation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, to adjudicate the matter and impose penalties. The Tribunal found no substance in the appellant's arguments regarding prior clearance from the Development Commissioner, issuance of show cause notice, and limitation. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after allowing the cross-examination of the Station Engineer, Doordarshan Kendra, New Delhi, and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.