2004 (1) TMI 479 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner, Import of goods under DEEC Scheme and contravention of EXIM Policy

Jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner, arguing that the impugned goods were assessed by officers under the Commissioner of Customs (Export), so the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 32/97-Cus. (N.T.) dated 16-7-1997 and found that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai had concurrent jurisdiction over Mumbai, Sahar Airport, Sahar Air Cargo, J.N. Port, Thane, and Raigad districts. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not limit the power of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in any way, unlike the case of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 5(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional challenge as frivolous and unsubstantiated, upholding the full jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner.

Import of goods under DEEC Scheme and contravention of EXIM Policy:
The case involved the import of goods under the DEEC Scheme, which were then sold in the market instead of being used for export purposes, contravening the conditions of the EXIM Policy and relevant customs notification. Despite notice and adjournments, no one appeared for the appellants. The Tribunal noted that on merits, the appellants had no case, and the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) did not require any interference. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeals both on merits and on the ground of jurisdiction, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appellants' arguments. The order rejecting the appeals was pronounced on 23-10-2003.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and dismissed the appeals challenging both jurisdiction and the impugned order regarding the import of goods under the DEEC Scheme in contravention of the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the relevant notification and statutory provisions supported its decision to reject the appeals on both jurisdictional and merit-based grounds.