9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No. C/551 /2006) and M/s. Skyline Marketing had imported textile fabrics through Tuticorin Port under DEEC licerices and cleared the same duty-free under Customs Notification No. 51/2000, dated 27-4-2000 during the period from August to November, 2002. From the results of investigations conducted by DGCEI, Mumbai, it appeared that the importers had not actually made any exports to be eligible for duty-free import of raw material; that they had forged/fabricated export documents and obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificates from the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT); and that they diverted the imported raw material to the domestic market instead of utilizing the same in the manufacture of export products. On this basis, the above show-cause notice was issued to the importers and others, proposing (a) to recover duty of over Rs.1.5 crores (duty forgone on the imported raw material) from M/s. Swami Fashions (P) Ltd. on the ground of breach of conditions of Notification No. 51/2000-Cus., ibid; (b) to recover duty of over Rs. 2.2 crores (duty forgone on the imported raw material) from M/s. Skyline Marketing on identical ground; (c) to adjudge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs of Customs and invests them all the powers exercisable by art officer of customs of the rank specified in the corresponding entry in the column (3) of the said Table, such powers being the powers of an officer of customs conferred under the said Act. TABLE S.No. Officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion Rank of the officer of Customs (1) (2) (3) 1. Director General Chief Commissioner 2. Additional Director General Commissioner 3. Additional Director Additional Commissioner 4. Joint Director Joint Commissioner 5. Deputy Director Deputy Commissioner 6. Assistant Director Assistant Commissioner 7. Senior Intelligence Officer Superintendent/Appraiser 8. Intelligence Officer Inspector/Preventive officer/Examiner [Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 9-5-2000]" The amending Notification [No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 23-11-2000] substituted the words "Directorate-General of Central Excise Intelligence" for the words "Directorate-General of Anti-Evasion". In the result, a Deputy Director, DGCEI could exercise the powers of a Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The learned Counsel argued that, without territorial jurisdiction having been sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides on the jurisdictional issue. The ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that, in the absence of Notification by the Central Board of Excise and Customs specifying the territory for the Additional Director-General of Central Excise Intelligence (ADCEI, for short) to function as 'officer of Customs' so appointed by the Central Government under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dt. 9-5-2000 as amended by Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dt. 23-11-2000, the ADGCEI had no jurisdiction to issue the above SCN and corrigendum thereto covering the imports made by Wintech Inc. through Chennai Seaport. He pointed out that Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.) had not specified territorial jurisdiction for the ADGCEI to function as Commissioner of Customs. According to the ld. counsel, the territory ought to have been determined and notified by the Board. In this connection, the provisions of Sections 4 & 5 of the Customs Act were referred to. Counsel also cited certain other Notifications issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, wherein the area of jurisdiction was also specified for the appointees to exercise powers and discharge duties as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd No. 229/88-Cus. dated 31-3-86) . However, in respect of Central Excise Intelligence there is no such restriction in the area of jurisdiction and hence, it is clarified that the officers of DGCEI has All India Jurisdiction in relation to Customs matters and the officers of the DGCEI have the authority and competence to investigate Customs matters and issue notices in relation to the cause action arising in the whole of India. 5. It is also further stated that in respect of Notification No. 70/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) have been appointed as 'Customs Officers' at the respective level indicate the area of jurisdiction as the whole of India. This does not restrict the area of jurisdiction for the officers of DRI and rather reiterates the position that their jurisdiction extends to the whole of India in terms of Section 1(2). Hence, the absence of such a mention of All India jurisdiction in the notification does not alter the legal position of such officers in terms of Section 1(2)." The ld. SDR has urged that the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellants be overruled. 4. We have given careful considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under this Act." The scheme of things is clear from a combined reading of Section 4(1) and Section 5(1) of the Customs Act. Where the Central Government (prior to 11-5-2002) appointed a person under Section 4(1) of the Act to be an officer of Customs but did not specify territorial limits for his functions, it was for the Board under Section 5(1) to specify such limits in exercise of its power to impose conditions and limitations subject to which such officer of Customs could exercise the powers conferred on him under the Act. Section 5(1) authorized the Board to impose conditions and limitations for an officer of Customs appointed (under the former provision) to exercise his powers and discharge his duties. From 11-5-2002, both the power to appoint a person as an officer of Customs and the power to impose conditions and limitations for exercise of powers and discharge of -duties by such officer of Customs are with the Board. In the instant case, the SCN was issued by the ADGCEI under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act on 8-8-2003 without territori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-4-1990 issued by the Central Government under Section 4 (1) of the Act. We find that the said Notification had clearly specified "whole of India" as the area of jurisdiction for the ADG, DRI, New Delhi to exercise the powers of "Collect6r of Customs". As noted by the Larger Bench, in that case, it was not in dispute that, under Notification No.19/90, ADG, DRI was appointed to be a "Collector of Customs" for the whole of India. As we have already found, in the present case, Notification No. 31/2000 (as amended) did not specify area of jurisdiction for ADGCEI to function as "Commissioner of Customs", nor did the Board specify such area under Section 5 (1) of the Act. 7. We have also perused other Notifications referred to by the counsel. In Notification No. 30/97-Cus. (N.T.), the Central Government, under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, appointed certain officers as "Commissioners", "Deputy Commissioners" and "Assistant Commissioners" to exercise powers and discharge duties within their respective jurisdictions. In respect of those officers who were appointed as "Commissioners of Customs", it was further specified that their jurisdiction would extend to the whole of India. In Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
