9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterfere with order passed by Tribunal – Appeals dismissed – Decided against Appellant. - C.U.A. NOS. 1 TO 3 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2015 - ANTONY DOMINIC AND SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ. For The Appellant : P.A. Augustian and M.A. Baby For The Respondent : Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SC, CE CST JUDGMENT Shaji P. Chaly, J. Aggrieved by the common order in Customs Appeal Nos.21470 to 21472 of 2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 19.08.2014, which affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thiruvananthapuram dated 06.01.2014, these appeals are filed. 2. The appellants are holders of courier registration certificates issued under Section 10 of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'CIECR' for short) to act as authorised courier in Thiruvananthapuram International Airport for clearance of import and export goods under courier mode. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that these courier agencies authorised to act as couriers were importing unaccompanied baggages of passengers and goods intended for trade or business in the guise of bona fide gifts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year. In our opinion, prima facie, the demand can be limited only for a period of one year prior to issue of show-cause notice, if authorisation has been obtained by the appellants and the authorisation relating to earlier periods could not be produced. Therefore what becomes important is that a proper conclusion as to whether authorisations were available, whether authorisations were obtained, whether authorisations were handed over to customs and there is also a dispute on the issue as to whether the officer who received the authorisation and other documents has to be cross-examined or not. Learned counsel submitted that it is the claim of the appellants that they had handed over the authorisation copies to the concerned Assistant Commissioner in Customs Airport and he also submitted that all they want is the documents if available to be given to them so that they can defend their case properly and we do not find any arm in this request. Therefore, the Commissioner concerned is requested to ensure that the officers in airport should ascertain whether documents were recovered from these agents and if available, appellants should be provided with copies. If not, we also do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount is not available and what is the correct rate of duty is to be determined. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter should be remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly, all the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded for fresh decision on merits. We make it clear that none of our observations should come in the way of the Commissioner and Commissioner should proceed to adjudicate the matter after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case and pass orders which would cover all the submissions made by the appellants and pass an order in accordance with law. 7.1 We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned standing counsel for respondent. 8. Even though several contentions are raised in the appeal memorandum, counsel for the appellants has confined his arguments only to one finding contained in paragraph 10 which is quoted hereunder:- We have already held in Indus Logistic's case that once an authorisation is not produced, the courier agent becomes the importer . 9. The counsel further contended that with such a finding of the Appellate Tribunal, it will not be possi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of delivery of the consignments to consignee] (b) advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and rules and regulations made thereunder and in case of non-compliance thereof shall bring the matter to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs; (c) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness and completeness of any information which he submits to the proper officer with reference to any work related to the clearance of import goods or export goods. (d) not withhold information communicated to him by an officer of Customs, relating to assessment and clearance of import goods as well as inspection, examination and clearance of export goods, from a client who is entitled to such information; (e) not withhold any information relating to assessment and clearance of imported goods or of export goods, from the Assessing Officer; (f) not attempt to influence the conduct of any officer of Customs in any matter pending before such officer or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or offer of any special inducement or promise or advantage or by the bestowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal cannot be found fault with and we hold so. 12. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there are sufficient evidence and proof to prove the illegalities that are committed by these appellants as found by the assessing authority. In view of the remand order made by the Tribunal to the assessing authority we are not inclined to express any opinion on this contention. The counsel for the respondent has further contended before us that these appeals are not maintainable under law since any appeal involving questions with regard to duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes as contemplated under Section 130(E)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be filed before the Supreme Court. To appreciate the said contention, Section 130E is quoted hereunder: 130E. Appeal to Supreme Court.-An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from-- (a) any judgment of the High Court delivered- (i) in an appeal made under section 130; or (ii) on a reference made under section 130 by the Appellate Tribunal before the 1st day of July, 2003; (iii) on a reference made under section 130A, in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral application made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
