1986 (6) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Import of nut megs in May 1984, unauthorized import considered by Collector of Customs, penalties imposed, legality of impugned orders and jurisdiction of Collector of Customs in passing the orders.

Summary:
The appeals dealt with the unauthorized import of nut megs in May 1984, leading to penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs. The appellants challenged the legality and jurisdiction of the impugned orders, focusing on the adjudication process under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contended that the order permitting clearance after assessment by Customs Appraisers constitutes an order of adjudication by a statutory authority, subject to revisional power by the Collector of Customs. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the out-of-charge order given by an Appraiser was merely an administrative act, not requiring revision by the Collector of Customs.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined whether the order of clearance given after assessment constitutes an order of adjudication under the Act. It was established that the proper officer must be satisfied that the goods are not prohibited and import duties are paid before permitting clearance for home consumption. The term "adjudicating authority" and "proper officer" were defined under the Act, emphasizing that an order permitting clearance after application of mind is indeed an order of adjudication, appealable or revisable by aggrieved parties.

The Tribunal clarified that an order of adjudication can only be questioned by a superior authority like the Collector of Customs, exercising revisional powers under the Act. In this case, it was found that the impugned order was passed by the Collector of Customs as an original adjudicating authority, not through revisional jurisdiction, rendering it without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. Citing judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court ruling, the Tribunal emphasized the finality of satisfaction by officers under Section 47 of the Act and the need for proper revisional procedures.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, noting that the Collector of Customs should have exercised revisional or review powers under the Act instead of issuing a Show Cause Notice and acting as an original adjudicating authority. The impugned order was deemed without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeals.