Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Grand Slam International vs Collector Of Customs on 16 May, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(57)ELT161(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. These twelve appeals arise out of the Order-in-Original No. 263/89 dated 6-11-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi.
2. At the outset the preliminary issue was raised in all these cases on point of jurisdiction. Their contention is that the goods were imported at Bombay Customs against a licence produced at the time of clearance and the goods were cleared after examination. Since the goods were assessed on payment of Customs duty at Bombay by following the order of assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 duly passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, apparently after satisfying himself, the Delhi Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the proceedings in respect of the goods cleared at Bombay Custom House.
3. The contention of the Department is that the Delhi Collector has jurisdiction since the goods were cleared fraudulently at Bombay Customs. According to Department, M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Ltd. (2nd appellant) and its Director Shri S.M. Aggarwal are alleged to have fraudulently imported 63 Fax Machines by purchasing Non-transferable additional licenses of 3 Export houses, viz, M/s Rattan Re-Rollers Calcutta, M/s. East India Leather, Calcutta and M/s. Garment Crafts, Jaipur. On payment of percentage of the face value of the licenses M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Ltd., operated on the said licences and completed all formalities clandestinely on behalf of Export Houses and in turn sold the machines to buyers in the open market. Export Houses allowed them to import these Fax Machines on receipt of service charges/commission of the value of the licence and cleared consignment of Fax Machines on behalf of only M/s. Casino Electronics. They paid Customs duty and other clearance charges and after clearance the consignments were delivered to M/s. Casino Electronics, New Delhi. Subsequently, these details were investigated by the D.R.I, and proceedings were adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi ordering for confiscation of 63 Fax Machines since the goods were procured by M/s. Casino Electronics by mis-utilisation of additional licence and violation of condition of additional licence. In view of these facts and the goods were sold to non-actual industrial users, the machines seized from purchasers were also ordered to be confiscated. Accordingly, the goods were confiscated under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, for contravention of Import Control Order, Import Control Act and Customs Act, 1962 in addition to imposition of penalties on parties who are directly involved or contravened the provisions of the various Acts committed by them.
4. We have heard the appellants through their learned Representatives and learned D.R. for the respondent on point of jurisdiction. The parties as well as Departmental Representative filed their written submissions in support of their respective contentions.
5. Shri M. Chandrashekaran, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants No. 1 to 3 argued in detail and others adopted his line of arguments on the issue of jurisdiction. The sum and substance of argument is that Collector of Customs, Delhi had no jurisdiction to seize the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and adjudicate the proceedings in respect of goods which had been cleared by the proper Officer at Bombay under Section 47 of the Customs Act. He said that this issue was already considered by this Tribunal in a series of cases and held in favour of the parties and in support of his contention he cited the following decisions :-
(i) Ramnarain Bishwanath v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1988 (34) ELT 202 (Tribunal)
(ii) Singh Radio & Electronics v. Collector of Customs, Delhi [1988 (36) ELT 713 (Tribunal)]
(iii) Metro Exports, Cochin v. Collector of Customs, Cochin [1988 (12) ETR 746 (Tribunal)]
(iv) Costa Foods Goods v. Collector of Customs [1989 (43) ELT 279 (Tribunal)]
6. On the other hand Shri G. Bhushan, learned SDR, appearing for the Revenue, while countering the arguments, justified the action of the Adjudicating Authority and submitted that Delhi Collector has jurisdiction since the goods were cleared fraudulently by M/s.Casino Electronics, Delhi from Bombay Customs by deliberately suppressing certain facts from proper Officer of Bombay Customs. Reliance was placed on certain observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Jain Shudh Vanaspati case [1982 (10) ELT 43 (Delhi)] which had been followed by the another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 3454/87, wherein it has been held as under :-
"...decision in Jain Shudh Vanaspati & Another was referred to me alongwith S. Ranganalhan, J. we have held that the jurisdiction of the officer that the goods imported are not prohibited is final once they were cleared under Section 47. We have further held the finality cannot be disturbed unless the Department successfully shows that there was fraud or deliberate suppression."
He said that ratio of the decisions cited by the appellants were considered by the Adjudicating Authority and they arc distinguishable in view of the fact that the goods were imported fraudulently and gross contravention of conditions of additional licence. In the present case since the machines were not disposed of to Actual Users (Industrial) as per conditions of licence, for not fulfilling this condition goods become prohibited goods attracts the liability to confiscation under Section 111(o) and the Customs Authorities were well within their right to confiscate the contraband goods. Further in Civil Writ Petition No. 1228/1988 in the case of M/s. Casino Electronics Pvt. Ltd. who had filed a Writ Petition in respect of seizure of Fax Machines, the High Court of Delhi had directed vide order dated 23-8-1989 Collector of Customs, Delhi to decide the case within one month Since the Additional Collector was bound by the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and even had to explain the delay for not passing the order within the period specified, the Additional Collector was not only justified in adjudicating the case but had no option left with him. D.R. also contended that in the present case investigation and seizure was made by the D.R.I. who is having all India jurisdiction which was quite legal as it was held by the Tribunal in the cases of Ramnarain Bishwanath and M/s. Singh Radio Electronics cited by the counsels for the appellants.
7. In reply, it was submitted that M/s. Casino Electronics Pvt. Ltd., purchased the Fax Machines from three Export Houses imported against valid import licenses and in turn sold the same machines to other individual buyers against proper invoice and documents. The buyers even include Govt. Departments and Agencies who are using the Fax Machines in their own offices. Even Fax Machines are shown in office equipment in the Export and Import Policy. It was emphasised that in this case the High Sea Sales of goods was involved. It was neither a case of transfer of licence nor fraud was perpetuated. The goods were assessed and cleared at Bombay Customs after duly passing the assessment order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the proper Officer.
8. As regards observations made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati and Ors. case and as directed by the High Court in the case of M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Ltd., it was submitted that point of territorial jurisdiction of the Collector was not considered in those cases, but only on the question as to whether once goods are permitted to be cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the goods go out of Customs control, the Department can still issue a notice under Section 28 of the Act or whether only proceedings under Section 129-D could be taken. The further submission was that, even if it is held that the goods were sold to persons who were not actual industrial users, it could at best amount to the violation of the post importation condition in respect of which the power to adjudicate is vested in the CCI & D and not in the Customs authorities, as has been held in Audio Vision v. Collector of Customs [1987 (31) ELT 796].
9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides, written submissions and perused the records with reference to facts and circumstances of the case. We are confining ourselves to the question of jurisdiction at this stage as this is a basic threshold question. It is well settled principle of law that jurisdiction cannot be assumed or conferred even by mutual consent. The authority under the Statute could exercise his powers vested in him as per provisions specified under the Statute. In the Customs Act, the jurisdiction is territorial-cum-functional jurisdiction. That is to say, jurisdiction is vested in the authorities appointed under Section 4 for the territories notified therein. The goods were imported at Bombay Port and were allowed clearance under Section 47 by the proper officer of Bombay Customs. Thereafter, the goods were taken out of customs charge and then the goods arrived at New Delhi and an order under Section 110 was passed by the Delhi Customs. An order under Section 47 having been passed by the proper officer of Bombay Customs, the Delhi Customs should have informed the Bombay Customs for appropriate action in accordance with law. The Collector of Customs, New Delhi, had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 110 and to adjudicate. He should have reported the matter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay or any other authority having all India jurisdiction. The decisions cited by the Departmental Representative were not dealt with the territorial jurisdiction of the Collector as rightly it was argued by the Appellants' Representatives. On the other hand this aspect was well considered by the Tribunal in the case of Ramnarain Bishwanath (supra) and same was followed in the case of Singh Radio and Electronics (supra). In these two cases it was held that if the goods were cleared by one Collectorate but seized by an officer of another Collectorate, then the seizure and adjudication by the authorities of that Collector are without jurisdiction. In the matter before us, the position is similar. Further we do not agree with the learned D.R. that impugned order was proper and quite legal as it was based on investigation and seizure made by the D.R.I. who is having all India jurisdiction. In the cases where offence is of a continuing nature and committed at different places, the proper course of action was to pass an information to the Director of Revenue Intelligence for investigation so that seizure, if necessary, could be made by them and the case could be adjudicated by the Director of Inspections in exercise of their All India Jurisdiction. This point was precisely answered by this Tribunal in the case of Ramnarain Biswanath and relevant portion of para 80 of the said judgment is reproduced below :-
"The jurisdiction for adjudication for confiscation and penalty under Section 122 or to exercise powers in terms of Section 129D and other relevant sections is vested only in the Collector in whose jurisdiction the alleged offence are committed. When a part of the offence is committed at one place and a part at another place and/or the offence is of a continuing nature, we need not look to the Cr.P.C, because the Customs Act itself takes care of such situation(s) by virtue of the authority vested in the Government to issue appropriate notification(s) under Section 4 and such notifications have indeed been issued under Section 4 vesting all India jurisdiction in the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Director of Inspections. In the instant case, the goods were imported at Paradwip and cleared by a proper officer of Paradwip Customs. If the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, had reason to suspect or a reason to believe that there was going to be attempt to import, or the import of goods, liable to confiscation had taken place and the offence was or was likely to be that of a continuing nature, and more than one Collectorale were likely to be involved, the proper course of action was to pass on the information to the Director of Revenue, Intelligence for investigation so that seizure, if necessary, could be made by them and the case could be adjudicated by the Director of Inspections (under the orders of the Board, if necessary) in exercise of their all-India jurisdiction."
10. Under these circumstances if any new facts or circumstances had come to light, the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi should have reported the matter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay or any authority having all India jurisdiction for further proceedings as per law.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases and the position of law as discussed above, we hold that Delhi Collector/Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case in respect of the goods in question. The appellants succeed on point of jurisdiction and, accordingly, all these appeals are allowed.
( G.A. Brahma Deva ) Member (J).
S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)
12. With due respects to learned brother Member (Judicial), my views and orders are as follows :-
We have heard these 12 cases together as a matter of convenience. However the cases of these appellants are not identical. On the basis of the facts involved and the allegations made, these cases could be grouped together as follows :-
Group I:
(i) Parties in whose name the licences were originally issued (the licence holders). These include the export houses.
(ii) (a) M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Limited, the alleged actual importers of the goods and
(b) Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Director of M/s. Casino Electronics.
Group II:
The rest of the appellants who had purchased the goods either from M/s. Casino electronics Private Limited or from others to whom the goods had been sold by M/s. Casino Electronics Private Limited.
13. In so far as the appellants under Group I are concerned, the cause of action has apparently arisen at Bombay as the goods were imported at Bombay and the bills of entries and licences were produced before Bombay Customs in the normal course and the goods had been assessed and cleared at Bombay under the orders of the proper officers of the Bombay Customs (and this position remains unaffected irrespective of whether a fraud is involved or not involved).
14. It is noteworthy that the charges basically relate in the main to the offences alleged to have been committed before or during importations of the goods i.e. the focal point in these matters is the alleged illegal importation and the case has been made out with reference to Section 111(d) C.A. 62 (read with ITC provisions); Of course Section 111(o) has also been invoked in relation to further disposals, but this is a collateral matter arising out of and flowing from the main allegations.
15. Hence in respect of these four appeals the cases are essentially similar to that of Ramnarain Bishwanath v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1988 (34) ELT 202 (Tribunal) in so far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned. As such, following the ratio thereof it is the proper officers of Bombay Customs who were competent to take necessary action in accordance with the law. The matter could of course be investigated by DRI but it was for Bombay Customs to take such course of action as was or may be open to it in law. These matters were therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi who has adjudicated the cases. As such I agree with my learned brother Member (Judicial) in so far as these cases are concerned; And further observe that in these circumstances appropriate notices could be issued only by Bombay Customs and the points such as the extent and nature of Customs jurisdiction (versus CCIE's jurisdiction), purchase/sale of licences or High Sea sales of goods and legality or otherwise of importation could be urged only before the appropriate authority in Bombay Customs and we are not required to pronounce any order on these aspects at this stage.
16. In so far as the remaining appellants are concerned admittedly they were neither importers nor were in any way connected with the importation of the goods in question. They had simply purchased them locally from M/s. Casino Enterprises or others and the allegation in respect thereof is basically with reference to Section 111(o) and the penalty was sought to be imposed on them mainly with reference to this Sub-section vide para V of Page 58 of the order-in-original [Section 111(d) having been invoked in the show cause notice only to show the allegedly smuggled nature of goods]. In the circumstances, these cases are distinguishable from that of Ramnarain Bishwanath and other similar cases decided by the Tribunal and cited by the learned counsel(s).
17. As the cause of action had prima-facie arisen within the jurisdiction of Delhi Customs in these cases, hence the jurisdiction could be exercised by the officers of Delhi Customs/DRI for the purpose of investigation and the notice could be issued and the matters could be adjudicatedby the proper officer(s) of Delhi Customs. As such the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Delhi Customs.
Of Course it would have been better if the DRI had submitted its report to DGI/CBEC and the matter was dealt with by some authority having all India jurisdiction nominated for the purpose as observed in the case of Ramnarain Bishwanath v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1988 (34) ELT 202 (Tribunal) as well as Singh Radio and Electronics v. Collector of Customs reported in 1988 (36) ELT 713 (Tribunal).
18. Be that as it may in view of the above position irrespective of the course of action, if any, still open to the Government, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction in respect of
1. Appeal No. C/30/90-NRB - M/s. Casino Electronics (P) Limited
2. Appeal No. C/463/90-NRB - M/s. East India Leather Industries
3. Appeal No. C/1560/90-NRB - M/s. Rattan Re-Rollers Limited.
4. Appeal No. C/83/90-NRB - Shri S.M. Aggarwal.
In so far as the remaining parties in
1. Appeal No. C/2951/90-NRB - M/s. Grand Slam International
2. Appeal No. C/1409/90-NRB - M/s. Birla Eastern Limited.
3. Appeal No. C/7/90-NRB - M/s. Machine Tools (India) Limited.
4. Appeal No. C/1559/90-NRB - M/s. Casino Enterprises
5. Appeal No. C/81/90-NRB - M/s. Woodchunk
6. Appeal No. C/82/90-NRB - M/s. Modelama Exports
7. Appeal No. C/460/90-NRB - M/s. Ashoka Electronics Corporation
8. Appeal No. C/451/90-NRB - M/s. British Aerospace are concerned as their cases are required to be treated on a different footing, the appeals are required to be posted for hearing on merits, when the points urged by them could be considered at length.
19. It is ordered accordingly.
(S.K. Bhatnagar) Member (Technical) CEGAT, NEW DELHI
20. In view of the difference of opinion between Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and myself the matter is submitted to the Hon'ble President for reference to a third Member on the following point of difference.
21. Whether the Additional Collector of Customs New Delhi had jurisdiction to adjudicate and pass orders in the matters in so far as it relates to
1. Appeal No. C/2951/90-NRB - M/s. Grand Slam International
2. Appeal No. C/1409/90-NRB - M/s. Birla Eastern Limited
3. Appeal No. C/7/90-NRB - M/s. Machine Tools (India) Limited
4. Appeal No. C/l 559/90-NRB - M/s. Casino Enterprises
5. Appeal No. C/81/90-NRB - M/s. Woodchunk
6. Appeal No. C/82/90-NRB -M/s. Modelama Exports
7. Appeal No. C/460/90-NRB - M/s. Ashoka Electronics Corporation
8. Appeal No. C/451/90-NRB - M/s. British Aerospace (S.K.Bhatnagar) Member (Technical) & (G.A. Brahmadeva) Member (Judicial) K.S. Venkataraman, Member (T)
22. The difference of opinion, which has arisen between the two members, is on the question whether the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, had jurisdiction to adjudicate and pass orders in the matter in respect of eight appellants as follows :
1. A. No. C/2951/90-NRB - M/s. Grand Slam International
2. A. No. C/1409/90-NRB - M/s. Birla Eastern Limited
3. A. No. C/7/90-NRB - M/s. Machine Tools(India) Ltd.
4. A. No. C/1559/90-NRB - M/s. Casino Enterprises
5. A. No. C/81/90-NRB - M/s. Woodchunk
6. A. No. C/82/90-NRB - M/s. Modelama Exports
7. A. No. C/460/90-NRB - M/s. Ashoka Electronics Corpn.
8. A. No. C/451/90-NRB - M/s. British Aerospace.
23. Shri Pradecp Jain, Ld. Counsel contended that in this case the goods have been cleared from the Customs House, Bombay on proper assessment under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the offence, if at all, is alleged, to have taken place, subsequent to this event, such post-importation offences do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Customs Officers. Only the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports can adjudicate such matters in support of which case law reported in 1988 (34) ELT 202 (Tribunal) as well as 1987 (31) ELT 796 were cited. The Ld. Counsel, further, relied upon the order of this Tribunal in its Order No. A/206/90-NRB, dated 30-3-1990 in Appeal No. C/2964/89-NRB, in which the Tribunal had held that for post-importation offences, the CCIE is the competent authority to adjudicate. The Ld. Counsel, further, cited the order of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Grand Slam International, one of the parties herein, Order No. 536-38/91 dated 8-3-1991 which also related to same import of Fax Machines. The Tribunal in that case held that when the goods have been cleared from one Customs House properly under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and such goods are seized later on for action under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the proper authority to adjudicate will be the Customs House through which the goods have been originally cleared. Therefore, in the case of 8 appellants, listed above, also the jurisdiction to adjudicate will not lie with the Delhi Customs, but will lie with the Bombay Customs authority where the goods were originally cleared under valid licence under Section 47 of the Customs Act. Further, Sh. B.N. Sharma, Ld. Consultant, submitted that his clients had purchased Fax Machines from M/s. Grand Slam International against proper invoice and payment by cheque. It was also submitted by the Ld. Consultant that the cause of action in these cases also arose at the time of import of the goods at Bombay and he placed reliance regarding jurisdiction in the case of Ramnarain Bishwanath decided by the Tribunal reported in 1988 (34) ELT 209.
24. Sh. L.C. Sikka, Ld. Counsel, submitted that in the case of his clients, the machines have been purchased from a firm, who, in its turn, had got it from M/s. Casino Enterprises. The Ld. Counsel submitted that such purchase must be considered as a continuing cause of action and as such the jurisdiction to adjudicate such cases also will lie with the Bombay Customs.
25. Mrs. Aruna Jain, Ld. Counsel, contended that violation of any post-importation condition cannot be adjudicated by the Customs authority and she relied upon the arguments and case law, put forth by the other Ld. Counsel in this regard.
26. Shri Bhushan, Ld. S.D.R., spoke in support of the reasoning by the Ld. Member (Technical) and submitted that the cause of action arose with the seizure of the appending goods at Delhi and their adjudication by the Delhi Additional Collector of Customs, is in order. He relied and referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Sita Ram - AIR 1966 S.C. 955 wherein the Supreme Court observed that it is a well-settled by the decision of this Court that the goods which have been imported against the prohibition or restriction imposed under Chapter IV are liable to confiscation at any time after import and that liability extends even in the hands of a third person, who may not have had anything to do with the actual import. He, further, pointed out that there was a direction in this case from the Delhi High Court to the Additional Collector to adjudicate the case and he had, therefore, no option, but to do so. In respect of jurisdiction of the Customs authorities, the Ld. S.D.R. relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Jacksons Jhevara v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1991 (32) ECC 89 that Customs and CCA. have their own fields action under the respective enactments.
27. The submissions made, have been carefully considered. The question is whether in the case of machines which have been seized within the Delhi Collectorate, the adjudication thereof can be done by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi for the reason the cause of action arises with the seizure of the goods at Delhi. In resolving this question, the order of the West Regional Bench in the case of one of the parties, herein, M/s. Grand Slam International and relating to similar offence of seizure of a Fax Machine at Pune after its clearance from Delhi Customs, was considered. The following ease law was cited before the West Regional Bench:
1. 1990 (45) ELT 622 (Tribunal) of Relish Foods 2.1988 (14) ECR 169 (Cegat) of Metro Exports 3.1989 (41) ELT 408 of MK Fisheries 4.1988 (34) ELT 202 Ramnarayan Vishwanalhan 5.1988 (36) ELT 713 in Singh Radio & Electronics.
Para 5 of this decision is directly on this aspect and is reproduced below :
"After hearing both the sides and perusing the citations made by the Ld. Advocate, we find that though in the cases of Relish Foods, Metro Exports and MK Fisheries (supra), the question involved was with regard to duty demand in respect of DEEC Scheme on the basis of the undertaking given to the Customs at the time of clearance, in respect of the other two cases, namely, cases reported in 1988 (34) ELT 202 and 1988 (36) ELT 713, these relate to clearance against licences, where the confiscation had been ordered under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act by an officer of a jurisdiction other than the officer of the concerned jurisdiction port, which has allowed the goods. We have no reason to differ from the view taken mainly because of the fact that in this case, the goods have been ordered confiscation under Section 11 l(d) and the allegation is one of transfer of licence and commission of fraud at the point of importation, which subsequently has reportedly come to their knowledge. In view of this, the proper authority to adjudicate the case would be the officer of the Delhi Customs. There is no bar in seizure of contraband goods anywhere in India by the jurisdictional officer but where an offence is alleged based on clearance through a particular port and fraud has been committed at the time of clearance of the goods, it would be necessary for the concerned adjudicating authority to invoke the provisions of the Customs and to pass the adjudication order and he is the proper jurisdictional officer to adjudicate on the matter. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeals themselves on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of adjudicating authority but allow the liberty for the department to get the matter agitated before the appropriate jurisdictional adjudicating authority, as per the provisions permitted under the law."
28. A further decision of the NRB relating to the same issue is available in this case of Northern Indian Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs -1991 (53) ELT 81 where also the facts were that the Ahmedabad Collector of Customs seized polyester staple fibre from one Soma Textiles at Ahmedabad which had been cleared earlier by the appellants therein at Bombay against Advanced Licence. He imposed penalty on them and confiscated the goods. He did not demand duty saying that action to do so was being taken by the Bombay Customs. The penalty on Northern India Woollen Mills was challenged before the Tribunal on the grounds of jurisdiction. Relying on the ratio of the case law reported in 1988 (37) ELT 272 in the case of Bliss Impex Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise and in the case of Singh Radio & Electronics reported in 1988 (36) ELT 713 and Costa Food v. Collector of Customs -1989 (43) ELT 279, the Tribunal held that the Collector had no jurisdiction and observed "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 confiscation and penalty. Severing the demand for duty from the levy of penalty and confiscation would amount to truncation and it would create an anamolous situation because there cannot be two parallel processes of adjudication, one for demand of duty and the other for confiscation and penalty." The ratio of the two decisions above, of the WRB & NRB, are therefore, clear that where the goods are unauthorisedly imported and it comes to the notice of the Department subsequent to clearance that such clearance was in violation of the governing conditions therefor and seizure is effected, then though there is no bar for such seizure of the goods anywhere in India by the jurisdictional officer, the adjudication of the case will properly fall within the jurisdiction of the Customs House through which the goods were originally cleared. It is also not possible to agree that the Additional Collector having adjudicated the case on direction by the High court, such adjudication is valid because the High Court order was not perse one of conferring jurisdiction. In such a view of the matter, the view expressed by the Member (Judicial) in this case is concurred with.
FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion the appellants succeed on the point of jurisdiction. Accordingly all these appeals are allowed.