2003 taxmann.

com 2016 (CEGAT- MUMBAI)/[2003] 153 ELT 133 (CEGAT- MUMBAI)

[22-11-2002]

[2003] 2003 taxmann.com 2016 (CEGAT- MUMBAI)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
Ramdeo Jewellers
v.
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai*
GOWRI SHANKAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AND G.N. SRINIVASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

FINAL ORDER NOS. CII/4140-41/WZB/2002

APPLICATION C/STAY-2381/2002-MUM.

APPEAL NO. C/782/2002-MUM.

NOVEMBER
 22,
2002 

Jurisdiction - Adjudication - goods imported through Chennai Port but seized at Mumbai for
contravention of exemption notification - CC Chennai and not CC (P) Mumbai has jurisdiction to
adjudicate the case - impugned order passed by CC (P) Mumbai is set aside with liberty to CC
Chennai to take necessary action (Paras 6 & 7)
CASES REFERRED TO
 
1. UOI Vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath, 1997 (96) ELT 224 - Followed [Paras 3, 5]
2. Kantilal Govindbhai Sagar Vs. CC, 2001 (45) RLT 717(CEGAT) - Referred[Para 3]
3. Engee Industrial Services P. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bombay 1996 (15) RLT 5 (CEGAT) - Relied on [Paras 4, 5]
D.H. Shah
for the Appellant. Virag Gupta
for the Respondent.
ORDER
 
Per Gowri Shankar : Appeal taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.
2. Ramdeo Jewellers imported and cleared from Chennai in 1987 automatic chain making machines. The
machines were cleared at concessional rate of duty in terms of the exemption contained in Notification 159/86
which grants exemption to such machines, which are used in the manufacture of gems and jewellery by the
registered exporters and others specified therein and used in processing or manufacture of jewellery for export,
subject to the condition that the importer furnish an undertaking to the effect that the goods shall be used for the
purpose cited above. Subsequently, these machines were found in the premises at Mumbai of the importer and
seized by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in September, 1991. The notice issued to the
importer proposed to deny the benefit of the exemption on the ground that its condition had not been complied
with, and confiscation of the machines and penalty. Adjudicating on this notice, the Commissioner of Customs
(Preventive), Mumbai, has ordered confiscation, demanded duty and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal.
3. The sole contention of the representative of the appellant is that since the machines were imported and cleared
at Chennai, it is the Commissioner at Chennai who has power to order confiscation of the goods and demand
duty. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath 1997 (96) ELT
224 and the decision of the Tribunal in Kantilal Govindbhai Sagar Vs. CC 2001 (45) RLT 717 (CEGAT)=2001
(133) ELT 809.
4. The departmental representative supports the Commissioner's order by relying upon the decision of the
Tribunal in Engee Industrial Services P. Ltd. Vs. CC 1996 (15) RLT 5 (CEGAT)=1996 (87) ELT 152.
5. The Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath takes note of the fact that the customs
authorities have a territorial-cum-functional jurisdiction and found that the customs authorities at West Bengal
had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the goods imported at Paradip in Orissa. In Engee Industrial Services P.
Ltd., a bench of this Tribunal noted the judgment in UOI Vs. Ram Narain Bishwanath and Others which laid
down that the Collector of Customs who does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of import or
clearance of imported goods cannot act against the order passed by the jurisdictional proper officer under Section
47 of the Act. It said that "the notice can be issued and the adjudication order passed only by a competent officer
having territorial jurisdiction over the place of import or clearance." It said that these principles cannot apply to
clandestinely imported goods i.e. the goods in respect of which no order has been passed under Section 47. In
such a case, it said, there is no assessment order passed by a proper officer having territorial jurisdiction over the
place where the goods have been seized. It said that either the proper officer having jurisdiction over the place of
clandestine import or the proper officer can take action.
6. The goods under consideration by us have not been clandestinely imported. They have been legally imported
and cleared after issue of an order under Section 47 of the Act by the Chennai Customs. It would also appear,
although that the representative of the appellant was not able to confirm this, that the goods have been cleared
after the undertaking stipulated in the notification regarding the use to which the goods had been furnished by the
importer. Therefore the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has no jurisdiction to order confiscation of the
goods and demand duty which he finds arises from a contravention of a condition subject to which the goods
were granted exemption at the time of importation by the proper officer at Chennai. It is the officer at Chennai
who has jurisdiction, if he finds any contravention, to adjudicate upon the notice in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. We make it clear that this order is no bar for the
concerned officers at Chennai to proceed with and take action in respect of the importer and the goods in
accordance with law.
■■

*In favour of assessee.