Page 182 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

516 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

5. Per contra, Sri. K.V. Aravind, Learned Counsel appearing for re-
spondent would support the impugned orders and would contend that order in
original which has been passed by the Additional Commissioner is just and
proper and he being the competent authority to pass such an order, no infirmity
can be found in the impugned order and he would contend there is no question
of law involved in this appeal for being formulated, adjudicated and answered.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the Learned Advocates appearing for parties, we no-
tice that issue relating to the authority which has passed the order-in-original
dated 4-8-2017, is Additional Commissioner of Customs. Section 122 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 under which said order has been passed reads :
“122. Adjudication of confiscation and penalties. - In every case under
this Chapter in which anything is liable to confiscation or any person is lia-
ble to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged, -
(a) without limit, by a [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commis-
sioner of Customs] or a [Joint Commissioner of Customs];
(b) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed
[five lakh] rupees, by an [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or
Deputy Commissioner of Customs];
(c) where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed
[fifty thousand] rupees, by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in
rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs.”
7. A plain reading of above provision would indicate that in every case
under the said Chapter i.e., Chapter XIV under which anything is liable to be
confiscated or any person is liable to be imposed with the penalty has to be adju-
dicated under Clause (a) of Section 122 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner
of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or a Joint Commissioner of Customs
without limit. Under Clause (b) the penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assis-
tant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the
value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed Rs. 5 Lakhs and under
Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Officer of Customs lower in
rank than an Assistant Commissioner of Customs where the value of the goods
confiscated would not exceed Rs. 50,000/-. Undisputedly, in the instant case,
value of goods was more than Rs. 5 lakhs and as per the appraisal value, who
had appraised the gold bar so confiscated and had certified the weight at 2566.05
grams of 24 carrot gold of foreign origin he had valued at Rs. 77,87,962/-. Before
levy of penalty show cause notice came to be issued by Additional Commission-
er of Customs proposing to levy penalty on appellant.
8. Additional Commissioner of Customs adjudicated said show cause
notice and by order dated 4-8-2017 ordered for confiscation of contraband gold
so seized and levied penalty as indicated hereinabove. Section 2(8) of Act defines
the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to include
the Additional Commissioner of Customs for the purposes of the Act except for
the purposes of Chapter XV. In other words, wherever the words “Principal
Commissioner of Customs” or “Commissioner of Customs” occurs in any Chap-
ter under the Act other than Chapter XIV it would mean and include Additional
Commissioner of Customs also. In the instant case, order under Section 122 hav-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  182