By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, AUG 30, 2018: THE petitioner was informed that a Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) has been appointed viz., the Director of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, for adjudicating the show cause notices issued to them by the Commissioner of Customs of various states.

The petitioner challenges the impugned appointment and contends that the same is wholly without jurisdiction and there is no power vested under the Act.

Notification No. 60 of 2015-Cus (NT) dated 04.06.2015 states that in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government has given directions that the powers of CBEC, under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act, may be exercised also by the Principal Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, for appointing officers of the rank of Commissioner of Customs or Additional Director General of the said Directorate for the purpose of adjudication of cases investigated by that Directorate.

The petitioner submitted that the power of delegation ought not to have been exercised and the ADG (Adjudication), DRI-Mumbai, ought not to have been appointed.

The High Court observed -

++ The notification does not speak of delegation of powers of CBEC to the Principal Director General of the Directorate General of Intelligence, but it says that such power of the Board under Sections 4 and 5 of the Customs Act, 1962, may be exercised also by the Principal Director General of the Directorate General of Intelligence. Therefore, the assumption of the petitioner is incorrect.

++ The manner in which the CAA has to be appointed has been prescribed in the form of guidelines issued by CBEC in Circular No. 18/2015-Cus dated 09.06.2015.

++ The above guidelines have been issued in the interest of expediting decision making with resultant benefits to both trade and revenue in terms of faster settlement of outstanding disputes and since the petitioner's cases involved duty of Rs.5 Crores and above, it shall be assigned to ADG (Adjudication), DRI-Mumbai .

++ Admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the notification 60 of 2015-Cus (NT) dated 04.06.2015 or Circular No. 18/2015-Cus dated 09.06.2015 and has questioned only the notification sent by the Deputy Director, who is obviously bound by the orders of the Principal Director General, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, r/w the circular issued by the CBEC for appointment of CAA.

++ Since the show cause notice is not challenged, this Court does not wish to ponder upon the issue any further or render any positive finding as it may affect the interest of the petitioner and other co-noticees.

Concluding that the impugned communication sent by the Deputy Director is in consonance with the notification issued and there is no reason for questioning the notification on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Petition was dismissed.

(See 2018-TIOL-1737-HC-MAD-CUS)