1992 (5) TMI 114 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Provisional Registration Certificate.
2. Re-export of goods without manufacturing activity.
3. Jurisdiction of the Board under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act.
4. Authority of the officer filing the appeal.
5. Availability of goods for confiscation.
6. Scope of remand by the Tribunal.
7. Examination of record by the revisional authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Provisional Registration Certificate:
The respondents imported integrated circuits in June 1988 under OGL Appendix 6. Initially, the Additional Collector ordered confiscation due to the expiry of the Provisional Registration Certificate on 31-3-1988. However, the Tribunal remanded the case considering the extension of the certificate's validity until 31-3-1989. The Additional Collector then accepted the respondents as Actual User (Industrial) and allowed clearance under OGL.

2. Re-export of Goods Without Manufacturing Activity:
The Board observed that the respondents re-exported the goods in the same form without manufacturing activity, thus not qualifying as Actual User (Industrial). The respondents contested this, claiming they exported printed circuit boards with mounted connectors for integrated chips. The Board's direction to the Collector to apply to the Tribunal for determining this aspect was challenged by the respondents.

3. Jurisdiction of the Board under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act:
The respondents argued that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129D(1) by considering materials not part of the original proceedings. The Board can only review the record of the adjudicating authority and cannot introduce new points not previously raised or considered.

4. Authority of the Officer Filing the Appeal:
The respondents contended that the appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs, Delhi, instead of the Additional Collector of Customs, IGI Airport, Delhi, as directed by the Board. The Ld. S.D.R. countered that the term "Collector" includes the Additional Collector, making the appeal valid.

5. Availability of Goods for Confiscation:
The respondents argued that since the goods were already exported, they were not available for confiscation, making the Board's direction impractical. The Ld. S.D.R. cited precedents where goods could be confiscated and penalties imposed even after clearance.

6. Scope of Remand by the Tribunal:
The respondents asserted that the Additional Collector's jurisdiction was limited to the Tribunal's remand direction, which was to consider the letter extending the validity of the registration certificate. The Board's review of this order was seen as exceeding its authority.

7. Examination of Record by the Revisional Authority:
The respondents cited multiple legal precedents to argue that the revisional authority must confine itself to the record of the proceedings and cannot consider extraneous materials. The Board's direction to examine the re-export aspect was beyond the scope of the original record.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 129D(1) by directing the Collector to file an appeal based on issues not part of the original proceedings. The appeal was deemed ab initio beyond jurisdiction and was rejected. The cross-objection by the respondents was allowed, affirming that the Board cannot travel beyond the record of the adjudicating authority.