9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 712 - HC - CustomsWhether the customs authorities have jurisdiction to issue any notice or to take any penal under Section 111, Section 113 and Section 114 read with Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 against any unit situated within the Special Economic Zone - notified that Section 53 being limited to that extent of authorized officer , who was earlier empowered to perform certain jobs under Chapter XA, the power of the Customs authorities under the Customs Act, including the power to confiscate and impose penalty under Sections 111 to 114, as enumerated in Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, is not taken away - Thus, we hold that the competent authorities under the Customs Act are still empowered to confiscate any goods under Sections 111 and 112 and impose penalty under Sections 113 and 114, in appropriate case, even with regard to the units situated within the Special Economic Zone. Whether the report submitted by the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla will prevail over the report submitted by the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering & Technology (CIPET), Ahmedabad and Chennai - the competent authority of the customs departments cannot take any action against the writ petitioners on the basis of the report submitted by the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla though it has power to take such action, as permissible under the law, if any irregularity is found pursuant to the report submitted by the CIPET, Ahmedabad or the CIPET, Chennai. The learned Single Judge, having failed to notice the aforesaid facts and the provisions of law and having erred in coming to the conclusion that the officials of the customs departments has no jurisdiction to take any steps in view of the Section 53 of the SEZ Act, 2005, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in SEZ 2. Validity of Reports from Different Laboratories Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in SEZ: The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Customs Officials at Kandla and Mundra SEZs in seizing and detaining imported containers under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging breach of the Import Policy. The Union of India contended that the Customs Officials had the right to take action against the petitioners situated within the Kandla SEZ. The petitioners argued that the FTDR Act is a complete code in itself, and the Director General of Foreign Trade is the adjudicating authority for breaches of the Import Policy. They contended that with the SEZ Act, 2005, the Development Commissioner of the concerned SEZ is the competent authority to take action for violations of the Import Policy, and the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply to SEZs. The court noted that the SEZ Act, 2005, has overriding effect over the Customs Act, 1962, and the SEZ is deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for authorized operations. However, the court held that the competent authorities under the Customs Act are still empowered to confiscate goods and impose penalties under Sections 111, 112, 113, and 114 of the Customs Act, even within SEZs. The court concluded that the Customs Authorities have jurisdiction to issue notices and take penal action for violations under the Customs Act. 2. Validity of Reports from Different Laboratories: The petitioners contended that the reports from CIPET, Ahmedabad and Chennai, which found the imported plastic scrap to be in conformity with the Import Policy, should prevail over the report from the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla. They argued that the Customs Officials acted beyond their jurisdiction by sending samples to their in-house laboratory after obtaining favorable reports from CIPET. The court observed that according to Public Notice No. 392(PN)/92-97, samples of imported plastic scrap should be sent to the nearest CIPET laboratory for analysis. The Customs Officials initially complied with this by sending samples to CIPET, Ahmedabad, which provided favorable reports. However, the officials later sent samples to the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla, which reported the material as street waste. The court held that the Customs Officials should not have sent samples to their in-house laboratory after obtaining reports from CIPET. The court directed that the Customs Department cannot take action based on the report from the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla, but can act on the reports from CIPET, Ahmedabad, or Chennai. The court instructed the Customs Officials to decide on the show cause notices based on the CIPET reports within one month and release the seized goods if no irregularity is found. Conclusion: The court affirmed the jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to take penal actions under the Customs Act within SEZs. However, it invalidated the reliance on the Customs House Laboratory, Kandla's report and directed actions to be based on CIPET reports. The judgment set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and disposed of all appeals, writ petitions, and civil applications without costs.
|
