Case Law Details
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai)
Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice.
Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the nature of the power to recover the duty, not paid or short paid after the goods have been assessed and cleared for import is a power that has been conferred to review the earlier decision for assessment. This power which has been conferred under section 28 of the Customs Act on the proper officer, must necessarily mean the proper officer who, in the first instance, assessed and cleared the goods. Thus, the Additional Director General, DRI did not have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice.
In Bakeman’s Home Products, the Tribunal has held that the proposal for confiscation and penalty cannot be segregated from duty demand and, therefore, the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
