Per C. Satapathy : These four appeals have been filed by Revenue against a common Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Shri Ishwar Singh, learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue states that the impugned order has been reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under its Order No. 150-R/97 Dtd. 30/06/1997. The departmental appeal has been filed as per the Board's finding that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not proper and legal for the reasons set out in Paragraph 9A to F of the said Order of Review. The learned J.D.R. reiterates the said reasons as also the grounds of appeal contained in the departmental appeal. He, further, emphasises the following:-

(1) The Commissioner should have appreciated that the provisional assessment was done not on account of applicability of Notification No. 203/92 dtd. 19/05/1992 but on the ground of chemical test of the goods.

(2) The Commissioner was wrong in applying the principle of comity of courts is holding D.R.I action as without authority of law, D.R.I. officials have been empowered with the powers of officers of Customs under the Notification No. 19/90 dtd. 26/04/1990 and they were fully competent to conduct investigation, make seizure and issue Show Cause Notices.

(3) In any case, the D.R.I. Show Cause Notice was made answerable to the said Commissioner of Customs who had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.

(4) The Commissioner is totally unjustified in holding the Show cause Notices as uncalled for and not imposing any penalty on such grounds, even though he has confiscated the goods.

(5) The Commissioner is also unjustified in imposing a very low fine of Rs. 4.50 Lakhs while the value of the goods was to the tune of Rs. 2.35 Crores.

He submits that the impugned order should be set aside and the case remanded for readjudication.

2. Shri S.N. Kantawala, learned Advocate appearing for M/s. Padma Nutrients clarifies that he is not the counsel for the main parties to the case viz. M/s. Cruford etc. He submits that though the Show Cause Notices were issued to his clients, no charges were laid against them. He, further, states that his clients had no role in this case except that the seized goods were stored in their premises. He states that the department's appeal does not propose any action against his clients but fairly points out that the grounds of appeal are limited to action against M/s. Cruford etc. including demand of duty and interest from them.

3. We have heard the submissions made by the learned J.D.R. as well as the learned counsel for one of the respondents. There was no representation on behalf of other respondents despite adjournment granted earlier. We feel it necessary to extract the reasons set out in the Order of Review passed by the Board in some detail which has given rise to this appeal:-

"A. The Commissioner has held that the goods in this case had been provisionally assessed on the presentation of the Bs/E in the Custom House and therefore the Show Cause Notice issued demanding duty on the goods cleared on provisional assessment is not permissible. The Commissioner has relied upon the judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej Boyce as reported in 1989 (43) ELT 225 (Bom.). The Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the Bs/E were assessed provisionally not on account of the applicability of the Notification No. 203/92- Cus dated 19.5.92 but because of the chemical testing of the goods. Therefore the ratio of the Mumbai High Court judgment in the case of M/s. Godrej Boyce is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Show Cause Notice is therefore, not ab-initio void or impermissible.

B. The Commissioner has observed that the proper officers in the Bombay Custom House were already seized of the matter and had taken cognizance of the import and no final benefit of clearance under Notification 203/92-Cus. had been granted. The Commissioner by relying upo