9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to issue a show cause notice. 2. Validity of the "let export order" issued by Bangalore Customs. 3. Authority to confiscate goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to issue a show cause notice: The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai had the jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for the confiscation of export cargo. The Commissioner of Customs (Export-Seaport) held that under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice dated 27-3-2007 for the confiscation of red sanders wood being exported under the guise of handicrafts to Singapore. The Commissioner referenced several legal provisions, including Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, Notification 15/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002, and Section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962, which designated Chennai Seaport as a Customs Area under Notification No. 52/2006-Cus. (N.T.). The Commissioner explained that the jurisdiction to give the "allowed for shipment" order, i.e., the loading of goods, lies with the Chennai Customs, as Chennai is the gateway port. The Commissioner further noted that under Circular No. 6/2002-Cus., dated 23-1-2002, export containers sealed at ICDs can be examined when there is specific intelligence. 2. Validity of the "let export order" issued by Bangalore Customs: The appellants challenged the order on the grounds that the shipping bill covering the goods was filed in Bangalore and the "let export order" was passed by the proper officer at Bangalore under Section 51 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner held that the "let export order" given by Bangalore Customs did not reach its finality as the loading of goods order was not given by Bangalore Customs. The proper officer at the gateway port, Chennai Customs, has the jurisdiction to give the "allowed for shipment" order. The Commissioner cited Section 2(18) of the Customs Act, 1962, which defines 'export' as taking out of India to a place outside India. The act of export and clearance is completed only when the goods are passed for shipment or allowed to be loaded onto a vessel. Therefore, the seizure was made before the completion of export formalities, and Chennai Customs had the authority to stop and examine the loading of export goods. 3. Authority to confiscate goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner referenced the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Madanlal Steel Industries v. UOI [1991 (56) E.L.T. 705 (Mad.)], which held that confiscation proceedings are not controlled by the clearance of goods for home consumption or export under Section 47 or Section 51 of the Customs Act. The Court noted that action to confiscate goods does not depend on the clearance of goods for home consumption or export but on conditions enumerated under Section 111 (improperly imported goods) and Section 113 (goods attempted to be improperly exported). The Commissioner also cited the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Vikram Jain [2009 (244) E.L.T. 504 (Kar.)], where the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that show-cause notices issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore were valid as proceedings for confiscation are actions in rem, and the proper officer having jurisdiction over the situs of goods had the authority to initiate proceedings. Conclusion: Following the ratio of the Madanlal Steel Industries and Vikram Jain decisions, the Commissioner concluded that the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
|
