2016 (12) TMI 1438 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of revisional authority - absolute confiscation - penalty - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of NVR Forgings vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT where it was held that the Joint Secretary of the Central Government has no jurisdiction to decide the revision. There has not been proper examination as to whether the goods which were brought by the petitioner are prohibited goods - matter is remanded to conduct appropriate examinations and find out that whether the goods in question are prohibited goods and whether they would fall under the definition of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act 1961. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the revisional authority in challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
2. Compliance with legal provisions regarding prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1961.
3. Adequacy of examination by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in determining whether the goods were prohibited.

Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority:
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the revisional authority in challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The petitioner contended that as per a previous decision, the Joint Secretary of the Central Government lacked jurisdiction to decide the revision. The Court noted that the decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority. Therefore, the Court decided to interfere with the order based on this technical ground.

Compliance with Prohibited Goods Provision:
The Court highlighted the importance of complying with legal provisions concerning prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1961. It was observed that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not consider this definition while setting aside the order of absolute confiscation of goods. The Court emphasized the need for a proper examination to determine whether the goods in question fell under the definition of prohibited goods, indicating a lack of thorough exercise by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

Adequacy of Examination by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals):
Regarding the examination conducted by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the Court noted that the revisional authority had referred to various Supreme Court decisions to conclude that the goods were prohibited. However, it was observed that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) did not adequately examine whether the goods were indeed prohibited. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the second respondent for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive examination of all legal aspects, particularly focusing on whether the goods constituted prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the second respondent. The Court directed the second respondent to thoroughly examine the contentions raised by both parties, specifically focusing on whether the goods in question were prohibited goods as per the relevant legal provisions. The decision was made based on the technical ground of jurisdictional incompetence, without delving into the merits of the case.