Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Northern India Woollen Mills vs Collector Of Customs on 8 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991(32)ECC143, 1991ECR760(TRI.-DELHI), 1991(53)ELT81(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Collector of Customs, confiscating 60,000 kgs of polyester staple fibre imported by the appellants and sold to one Soma Textiles, Ahmedabad in contravention of the terms and conditions of the advance import licence and the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 117/78 under which the goods had been imported and cleared free for duty, and imposing penalties upon both parties. The case of the Department is that goods imported under advance licence were sold to Soma Textiles on the basis of the markings on the wrappers used to pack polyester fibre and bale numbers corresponding to shipping marks found on certain Bills of Entry.
2. At the outset, Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the appellants raised the preliminary point of jurisdiction of the Collector, Ahmedabad, to adjudicate upon an offence in relation to import at Bombay port and cited several decisions of this Tribunal in support of his contention that adjudication can only be by the Collector at the port of import. He seeks a decision on the issue of jurisdiction, which is the sheet anchor of any proceeding and which cuts at the very root of the matter. The learned SDR replies that the duty demand has been raised by the Bombay Collectorate and only the post-importation offence under Section 111(o) has been legally and validly adjudicated upon in the order impugned before us.
3. We have heard both sides on the preliminary issue and considered the citations relied upon by the learned advocate. In the case of Costa Foods v. Collector of Customs [1989 (43) ELT 279], this Tribunal, while dealing with a case of import of goods and their clearance duty free at Madras, held that the proper authority to demand customs duty and to impose penalty under Section 114 in connection with any alleged violation of Notification No. 117/78, was the Collector at Madras and not the Cochin Collector. This is also the ratio of the decision in Bliss Impex Corporation, Cochin v. Collector of Customs [1988 (37) ELT 272]. In the case of Singh Radio & Electronics v. Collector of Customs [1988 (36) ELT 713 (Tri.)], it has held that an order under Section 47 for clearance of goods having, been passed by the proper officer of Bombay Customs, the Collector of Customs, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 110 and adjudicate - he should have reported the matter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay or any other authority having All-India jurisdiction.
4. In this case, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the condition subject to which the goods were exempted from duty was not observed by the appellants - the goods had been sold to M/s. Soma Textiles instead of being exported under the provisions of DEEC scheme. Penalty has been imposed both upon the appellants and the purchaser of the goods under Section 112. We are of the opinion that the demand for duty, confiscation, and levy of penalty are to be done in a composite manner and duty demand cannot be segregated from the confiscation and penalty. Severing the demand for duty from the levy of penalty and confiscation would amount to truncation and it would create an anomalous situation because there cannot be two parallel processes of adjudication, one for demand of duty and other for confiscation and penalty.
5. In this view of the matter, we uphold the preliminary objection of appellants, and hold that the Collector, Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon confiscation and penalty.
6. The impugned order is set aside in so far as it relates to the appellants herein and the appeal allowed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction.