9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued without jurisdiction and set aside. - C/551-553, 507/2006 and C/1/2007 - 1262-1266/2008 - Dated:- 30-10-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) S/Shri Anil Balani, Naresh Thacker and H.R. Shetty, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Consultant and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- These appeals are against Order-in-Original No.187/2006, dated 14-9-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin in adjudication of show-cause notice dated 2-7-2003 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate-General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, as amended by corrigenda dated 29-8-2003 and 8-9-2004. The original show-cause notice was answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai. Its first corrigendum made it answerable to the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai and the second corrigendum made it answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. 2. M/s. Swami Fashions (P) Ltd. (appellants in Appeal No. C/551 /2006) and M/s. Skyline Marketing had imported textile fabrics through Tuticorin Port under DEE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 111(d) and (o) of the Act and (c) imposed penalties on both the importers and other appellants under Section 112 of the Act. 4. When these appeals arose for final hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated the jurisdictional objection. They submitted that the Deputy Director, DGCEI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, had no territorial jurisdiction to issue the subject show-cause notice inasmuch as Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 9-5-2000 as amended by Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 23-11-2000 did not specify any territory for DGCEI officers to exercise powers as officers of Customs under the Customs Act. The Notification (as originally issued) referred to by the counsel is reproduced below:- "Appointment of Anti-Evasion Officers with powers of Customs Officers In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion specified in column (2) of the Table below as the officers of Customs and invests them all the powers exercisable by art officer of customs of the rank specified in the correspon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultant for the Revenue sought to strike a distinction between 2 sets of Notifications issued by the Central Govt. under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, one set in which territorial jurisdiction was specified and the other in which such jurisdiction was not specified. Notifications 31/2000 and 113/2004 were in the second category as, in these notifications, territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction was not specified. It was argued by the learned Special Consultant that no restriction in jurisdiction had been prescribed in either of these notifications and, therefore, the officers appointed thereunder had unrestricted jurisdiction. He has also relied on CBEC's letter dated 4-12-2007 issued in Dy. No.1561/JS(Cus.)/2007, wherein it was clarified that DGCEI officers had all-India jurisdiction in relation to customs matters. 6. After considering the submissions, we note that an identical issue was considered by this Bench in Final Order No. 1136/2008, dated 6-10-2008 in Appeal No. C/463/2004 [Wintech Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Chennai]. We find that the view taken in the said final order is squarely applicable to the present case. Paragraphs 3 to 8 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officers of Customs". Accordingly, the Notification No. 31 /2000-Customs (N.T.), dated 9-5-2000 issued in exercise of the powers under Section 4(1) empowers the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence with the powers that can be exercised as 'Customs Officers' of equivalent rank specified therein. The Notification does not specify any jurisdictional limit or restrict the area in which such powers can be exercised and hence, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 1, such powers would extend to the whole of India. 4. In the various notifications issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherever the area of jurisdiction needs to be defined in the case of 'Chief Commissioners/Commissioners', this has been specifically mentioned in such notifications. [Notification No.14/2002-Customs (N.T.) 15/2002-Customs (N.T.) and 18/2002-Customs (N.T.) all dated 7-3-2002 refers]. Further, where the officers of the Department need to be appointed for specific purposes such as adjudication of cases lying before different jurisdictional authorities or specific work relating to certain regions, these have also been specified by restricting the area of jurisdiction. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eneral 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 (underlining supplied) Before its amendment (w.e.f. 11-5-2002) under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2002, sub-section (1) of Section 4 had authorized the Central Government to appoint such persons as it thought fit to be officers of Customs. After the amendment, the Board has this power of appointment. As per the above Notification, an Additional Director-General of Central Excise Intelligence could exercise all the powers exercisable under the Act by a Commissioner of Customs. The Central Government, however, did not specify territorial jurisdiction for ADGCEI to exercise the powers of Commissioner of Customs. It was for the CBEC under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act to specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or export made through Kolkata Port and any Assistant Director of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Unit, can assume jurisdiction as "Assistant Commissioner of Customs" to issue SCN and pass order in adjudication thereof under Section 28 of the Customs Act in respect of an import or export made through Kandla Port. Obviously, this was not intended by the Central Government under Notification No. 31 /2000-Cus. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 69/2000- Cus. (N.T.). A "proper officer" of Customs for purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act should be an officer of Customs with both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be assumed; it should be conferred by the competent authority under the enabling provisions of law. Any territorial jurisdiction to issue SCN to the appellants in respect of the subject imports made through Chennai Seaport was not conferred on the ADGCEI, Chennai Unit and, therefore, we have to sustain the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellants; 6. The Larger Bench decision in Konia Trading Co. (supra) is of no aid to the Revenue in the present case. In that case, the question considered by the Bench was whether an Addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
