9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Appeals) was not at all correct in observing that the Additional Commissioner of Customs was the adjudicating authority in the present case. We have already pointed out above that the provisional release orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 were both passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was wrong in concluding that the appeal fell within the jurisdiction of the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The faulty premise is that the Commissioner of Customs cannot adjudicate a matter which involves duty of less than 50 lacs. The extract of the circular dated 31.05.2011 makes it clear that the Commissioner of Customs has authority to adjudicate all cases without limit. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) acted within his jurisdiction when the orders dated 03.05.2013 and 17.05.2013 were issued by him. The learned counsel for the appellant is factually wrong because the order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and not by an Additional Commissioner of Customs or by a Joint Commissioner of Customs. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms (Preventive). The same was communicated by the Assistant Commissioner (Delta) (Mr Pawan Khetan) by a letter dated 03.05.2013 but actually signed on 06.05.2013. The said letter reads as under:- OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI C. No. VIII(SB)10/CusPrev /Delta/26/13/6154/06.05.13 Dated:03.05.13 M/s Amit Electronics, WZ-2, Ram Garh Colony, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi-110015. Sub: Provisional release of seized goods - reg. The competent authority has acceded to your request for the provisional release of the seized goods on furnishing the Surety Bond for ₹ 77,25,934/- and Bank Guarantee for ₹ 19,31,484/- (25% of the Bond value). In addition to the above you are also requested to deposit the amount of ₹ 8,13,984/- as differential Customs duty on the seized goods. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Pawan Khetan) Assistant Commissioner (Delta) 5. From the above letter, it is evident that the communication was sent by the Assistant Commissioner (Delta) on 06.05.2013 and that the letter mentioned that the competent authority had acceded to the appellant s request for provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ests for permission to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to file an appeal against the said order. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. After the dismissal of the said writ petition in the circumstances aforesaid, the communication dated 21.05.2013 was received by the appellant. 9. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in respect of both the orders dated 03.05.2013 as well as the order dated 17.05.2013 which had been communicated by virtue of the letter dated 21.05.2013. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) disposed of the same by an Order-in-Appeal No. CC (A) CUS/352/2013 dated 10.06.2013 by relaxing some of the conditions. In other words, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was an order passed in favour of the appellant. While doing so, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) noted that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to pass an order therein. This fact is noted in paragraph 4 of the said order dated 10.06.2013 which is extracted herein below:- 4. I have carefully gone through the Order and the contents of the Appeal and the oral as well as written /additional submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this threshold and hence the Commissioner of Customs is the proper adjudicating authority in such cases. Thus, any appeal against any decision/order taken by the Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authority should be with CESTAT and not with Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as per Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the decision to grant provisional release was taken by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi and conveyed by Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Mere communication of a decision/order of Commissioner by an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner does not render the same a decision or order passed by Assistant Commissioner appealable before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. This has clearly been upheld in a number of cases including Shri Dhananjay Kumar. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhavasheva [2008 - TIOL - 2867 - CESTTAT - MUM ] where it is held that Tribunal in series of judgments has been consistently holding that the order of the Collector but intimated by Superintendent, appeal against such order, will lie with Tribunal. This being an order of Commissioner havin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), had placed reliance on a Board Circular No. 23/09-Customs dated 01.09.2009. He submitted that the said circular had been amended by a subsequent circular being Circular No. 24/2011 dated 31.05.2011. He pointed out that while the monetary limits of adjudication prescribed under the circular dated 01.09.2009 were according to the value of the goods, the circular dated 31.05.2011 had modified the same and the monetary limits were prescribed with reference to the amount of duty involved. Paragraph 4 of the said circular dated 31.05.2011 is relevant for our purposes and the same is reproduced herein below:- 4. The matter has been examined in the Board. In order to streamline guidelines on monetary limit for adjudication of cases by different grades of Customs Officers, it has been decided that henceforth, cases where SCNs are issued under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, these will be adjudicated as per following norms: Level of Adjudication officer Nature of cases Amount of duty involved Customs Commissioner All cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
