9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants exported goods under claim for Drawback. The first appellant received an amount of Rs. 4,58,706/- as Drawback. The second appellant received a sum of Rs. 3,54,621/-. DRI investigations revealed that the appellants had not received the export proceeds within the period allowed. Therefore, Show Cause Notices were issued under Rule 16/16A of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995 for recovery of the drawback amounts. Penalties under Section 117 were also proposed. The Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned orders for recovery of the drawback amounts. However, he dropped the penal proceedings against the appellants. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned orders. 3. Shri B.G. Chidananda Urs, the learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. He also stated that the DRI officers have been empowered to act as officers of Customs by way of Notification issued by the Central Government. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the Raza Textiles Ltd. case, the Apex Court has held that no authority, much less a quasi-judicial authority can confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. In our view this case cannot be applied to the present cases for the reason that DRI officers have been empowered to act as officers of Customs under Notification No. 17/2002-Cus.(N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, which reproduced below:- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) officers appointed as Customs Officers Notification No. 19/90-Cus. (N.T.) su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veals that it is the Central Government which has given jurisdiction to the DRI officers to exercise the powers of officers of Customs for the whole of India. It is not the case of the appellants that the DRI officers have usurped the powers themselves. This Notification has been issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. 9. As regards the objection raised by the appellants for the Commissioner to adjudicate the case, it is seen that under Section 5(2) of the Customs Act, An officer of Customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under the Act on any other officer of Customs who is subordinate to him. In view of the above provisions, it is not illegal on the part of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued. Just because the DRI officer issued the Show Cause Notice no prejudice is caused to the appellants and they cannot argue that principles of natural justice have been violated because DRI officer issued the Show Cause Notice. This is an absurd argument which totally ignores Notification No. 17/2002-Cus.(N.T.). 11. In the Ramnarain Bishwanath case, the goods were cleared from Bombay Port. The Supreme Court held that it is the Customs authorities at Bombay who have the jurisdiction to decide the valuation of the goods even though the goods were seized in another jurisdiction. This case has no applicability in the present appeal. 12. In the Alcobex Metals case, the Deputy Collector issued Show Cause Notice under proviso to Section 11A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
