1987 (5) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs to issue show cause notices after goods were permitted to be cleared.
2. Legal basis for initiating proceedings against the appellant.
3. Authority of the Collector of Customs to modify or revise an order of adjudication.
4. Applicability of the power of review or revision to the Collector of Customs.
5. Direction for expeditious refund of the locked-up amount with the Department.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged an order imposing a fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant imported fabrics against R.E.P. licenses, leading to proceedings alleging the goods were not permissible under the licenses. The appeal questioned the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs to issue show cause notices after the goods were cleared for home consumption following assessment and payment of duty by the appellant.

2. The legal issue revolved around the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by the Collector of Customs despite the goods being cleared for home consumption after proper assessment and payment of duty. The appellant contended that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to reinitiate proceedings on the same facts, as the order of assessment by the proper officer had been accepted and duty paid.

3. The Tribunal examined the authority of the Collector of Customs to modify or revise an order of adjudication after the goods had been assessed and duty paid. It was emphasized that once an order of adjudication had been made following assessment and duty payment, the Collector lacked the jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings on the same evidence and circumstances.

4. The judgment clarified that post the establishment of the Tribunal, the Collector of Customs no longer had the power of review or revision under the Customs Act, 1962. The only recourse available to the Collector was to file an appeal under Section 129D of the Act. The Tribunal cited precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Court to support the conclusion that the impugned order was without jurisdiction.

5. Lastly, the Tribunal directed the authorities to grant a refund of the locked-up amount with the Department within three months from the date of the order, considering the prolonged pendency of the issue since 1984. This direction aimed to provide expeditious relief to the appellant in light of the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order.