IMPORTANT POINT
Question of jurisdiction is a question of law.

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J. —

1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 ( for short “the Act”), by the importer, is to the final order dated 2nd September, 2009, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CUSAA No. 7/2009. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed appellant’s appeal under Section 130 of the Act on the ground that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in appeal Nos.C/920-22/2005, for its consideration.

2. To appreciate the controversy involved a brief reference to the facts, as found by the Tribunal, would be necessary. These are:

The appellant, a body corporate, is engaged in the business of import of plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. On 22nd May, 2000, one of the directors of the appellant, namely, Rakesh Chandna, was apprehended by the officers of the Customs department at Calcutta Airport. He was found in possession of US $45,000/- and Indian currency of ‘9,000/-, alongwith several incriminating documents, which fuelled further follow up action by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short “the DRI”). On 23rd May, 2000, in search operations, certain goods were seized from the premises of the appellant, as no documentary evidence was allegedly produced for their legal acquisition. The value of the goods so seized was determined at ‘24,26,234/-.

3. Statements of Rakesh Chandna and one Sanjeev Murgai, Manager of the appellant and also of some other persons were recorded, which revealed that the goods imported by the appellant viz. plywood, MDF boards and veneers etc. had been under-valued. Based on the incriminating documents recovered during the course of investigation, a show cause notice dated 16th May, 2001 was issued to the appellant by the DRI under Section 124 of the Act, detailing the Bills of Entry, wherein there was mis-declaration of quantity/description and value of the goods. The appellant was asked to show cause as to why duty, amounting to ‘3,95,58,229/-, be not recovered; goods be not confiscated and a penalty be not levied on them. Taking into consideration the explanation furnished on behalf of the appellant in their written submissions and the documentary evidence available on record, including the fax messages sent by Rakesh Chandna to his overseas suppliers, the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), vide order dated 17th September, 2004, ordered the confiscation of goods valued at ‘3,04,98,365/- under Section 111 of the Act; confirmed the demand, amounting to ‘1,45,85,446/- under Section 28AB of the Act, besides levying a penalty, amounting to ‘1,45,85,446/- under Section 114A of the Act on the appellant. The Commissioner also levied personal penalty of ‘10 lakh and ‘5 lakh on Rakesh Chandna and Sanjeev Murgai respectively.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 26th-27th June, 2007.

5. Having failed in their appeal before the Tribunal, as aforestated, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Act before the High Court raising as many as 7 questions, stated to be substantial questions of law, for the opinion of the High Court. One of the questions so framed in para 3 of the application was as follows:

“(a)-Whether the Addl. Director General in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is “proper officer” within the meaning of section 28 of the Act?”

However, as already stated above, the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant by a short order, which reads thus:

“We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone through the orders passed by the Tribunal. The arguments before us are the same, as it was raised before the Tribunal. We find from the orders of the Tribunal that each and every argument has been dealt in detail and we agree with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that