1992 (12) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the impugned order is an order in adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the appellant, a Customs House Agent, can be held liable for differential duty under the surety agreements executed by them.
3. Whether the impugned order is appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case is whether the impugned order constitutes an order in adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal examined the show cause notices issued to the importers and observed that the Department proceeded on the basis that the goods were imported by the two Companies, making the importers primarily liable for duty payment. The Tribunal held that the appellant, acting as a Customs House Agent, cannot automatically be considered the importer and be subject to adjudication for duty levy. It was concluded that the impugned order is not an order in adjudication and therefore not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2:
The next issue pertains to the liability of the appellant, a Customs House Agent, for the payment of differential duty under the surety agreements executed by them. The appellant contended that enforcement of the surety bond against them does not constitute an order in adjudication under the Act. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the enforcement of bond terms against a surety is not an order in adjudication and cannot be construed as such. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department must enforce the terms of the bond through appropriate legal proceedings and cannot shortcut the process by passing an order in adjudication against the surety.

Issue 3:
Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the question of appealability of the impugned order before the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was held that since the impugned order was not considered an order in adjudication, an appeal against it would not lie before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the Department can enforce the terms of the bond through lawful means but cannot treat the enforcement as an order in adjudication under the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the impugned order was not an order in adjudication, the appellant's liability under the surety agreements did not constitute an adjudication order, and therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.