2017 (7) TMI 44 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114 of the CA 1962 - jurisdiction - whether the officers of SIIB are not empowered or assigned the function of a proper officer under Section 2 (34) of Customs Act 1962 at the time of issue of show cause notice? - mis-declaration of export goods - Held that - the matter is covered by the Tribunal s decision in the case of Rahul Arora V/s CCE Delhi 2017 (5) TMI 1436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that new inserted Section 28(11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to adjudicate the SCN issued by them for the period prior to 08/04/2011 - the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Proprietor, appealed against the penalty imposed under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved a show cause notice issued to the appellant for attempting to export rice declared as sanitary ware. The Revenue seized the goods under section 110 of the Customs Act. The Additional Commissioner adjudicated the notice and imposed a penalty of ?8 lakh, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal against the Order in Appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited a decision of the Delhi High Court regarding the empowerment of SIIB officers as 'proper officers' under the Customs Act. The Revenue's representative argued that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and referred to a stay on the Delhi High Court decision. The appellant's counsel contended that the issue was covered by Tribunal decisions in other cases.

The Tribunal considered the amendments to the Customs Act post the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. It noted the appointment of various officers as 'Proper Officers' and the insertion of Sub-Section 11 in Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in similar cases, emphasizing the issue of jurisdiction concerning DRI officers.

The Tribunal highlighted conflicting views from different High Courts on the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show cause notices. It noted that the matter was before the Supreme Court due to these contradictory decisions. In light of this, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue first, followed by the merits of the case.

Following the precedents set in other cases, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the original adjudicating authority to decide the jurisdiction issue after the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.