CAG raps customs for bad monitoring – Officers prone to postponing adjudication
The CAG in his report no. 7 of 2007 to the Parliament has noticed that officers are not exactly eager to pass adjudication orders.
Inadequate internal control mechanism
Board through their instructions issued on 23 April 2003 stressed the need for close monitoring of appeal cases and judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT daily on internet and desired that Chief Commissioners should examine the cases critically and develop adequate mechanism to implement the directions of the Court. (This is the circular in which the Board had asked the field to get information from www.taxindiaonline.com )
In two cases of M/s. HPCL {(CC (I), NCH Mumbai)} on appeal of the importer, orders in original were set aside by CC (Appeal) in September 2002 and March 2003. It was observed that though substantial revenue of Rs.14.36 crore was involved, yet both the orders were submitted (June 2005) for acceptance after a delay of 27/33 months.
Review of register maintained in legal/review cell of Chennai (Air) and Mumbai commissionerates revealed that the nature of order whether adverse or in favour of department, money value, details of stay, interim stay, vacation of stay were not recorded, in many cases.
Audit scrutiny revealed that eight cases in Chennai (Air) and CC (Import) JNCH, Mumbai involving revenue of Rs.18.75 crore were shown as closed but these cases have not reached finality. Five cases in CC (I) JNCH, Mumbai were shown as closed due to non availability of files and these cases were not reflected in MTR as pending adjudication till December 2005.
In MTR of CC (ICD), New Delhi for June 2005, two cases involving revenue of Rs.11 lakh were shown as pending in High Court whereas in annexure of same MTR, cases where stay had been granted by High Court were shown as nine involving revenue of Rs.4.06 crore. As such, correct position of pendency was not clear.
In three other cases of Chennai (Sea) and (Air) though these cases involving revenue of Rs.3.84 crore are pending in High Court, they were neither shown pending in call book nor in MTR as arrears of adjudication and another 21 call book cases in Chennai (Sea) and Trichy commissionerates involving revenue of Rs.29.42 crore were not shown pending in MTR.
This is indicative of inadequate monitoring and non identification of cases for priority action.
Conclusion – Audit’s review revealed
non adjudication of cases even up to 46 years,
abnormal delay in adjudication including denovo adjudication,
issue of corrigendum to orders in original in violation of Board’s instructions,
avoidable litigation,
pendency of cases in call book,
non/delayed filing of appeal leading to dismissal,
non vacation of stay orders,
non monitoring of court cases effectively and consequent risk to revenue realisation.
Adjudication officers were prone to postponing finalisation of adjudication by taking recourse to ‘where it is possible to do so’ proviso.
Various measures initiated by the Government to speed up finalisation of adjudication and appeal cases did not meet the objectives largely due to lack of consistent monitoring and inadequate internal controls.