1996 (5) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Show Cause Notices issued by Assistant Director DRI.
2. Competency of Assistant Director DRI to issue Show Cause Notices u/s 28(1) of the Customs Act.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
4. Decision on merits regarding the nature of imported goods.

Summary:

1. Validity of Show Cause Notices:
The main issue across all appeals was the validity of Show Cause Notices issued by the Assistant Director of DRI. The adjudicating authority initially dropped proceedings in two groups of appeals on the ground that the officer issuing the Show Cause Notices was not the proper officer authorized to do so. In the third group, the adjudicating authority also dropped part of the demand on merits.

2. Competency of Assistant Director DRI to Issue Notices u/s 28(1):
The Assistant Director DRI issued Show Cause Notices invoking extended period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. The respondents contended that the Assistant Director DRI was not the "proper officer" as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act. The Board's circular dated 14-5-1992 designated only the Collector of Customs as the "proper officer" for issuing such notices. The Tribunal upheld that the Assistant Director DRI was not authorized to issue these notices, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:
The Show Cause Notices were composite, covering both Section 28(1) and Section 124 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that while theoretically, a notice under Section 124 could be valid independently, the issues were so interlinked that separate proceedings were neither feasible nor desirable. The Tribunal rejected the plea to remand matters for adjudication solely under Section 124, particularly since fresh notices had been issued and were near completion.

4. Decision on Merits Regarding the Nature of Imported Goods:
For the third group of appeals, the adjudicating authority found that the goods seized from M/s. Parekh Food International were Masoor Whole (Lentils) and not Vetches, based on multiple test reports from credible institutions. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, noting that the Department's solitary report from the Central Food Laboratory was unreliable and countered by substantial evidence from other authorities.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected all appeals, upholding the adjudicating authority's decisions on the invalidity of the Show Cause Notices and the findings on the nature of the imported goods. The order clarified that this decision would not affect fresh adjudication proceedings initiated pursuant to the orders.