2018 (10) TMI 1214 - AT - Customs

SEZ unit - mis-declaration of description and value of imported goods - three consignments containing Chinese Mobile Phones - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Noida to pass such order. Held that - Identical issue decided in appellant own case MORGAN TECTRONICS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2014 (9) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that in terms of the Section 53(1) of the SEZ Act, 2005, the SEZ is deemed to be territory outside the Customs Territory of India, and the goods imported were meant for the unit in SEZ Noida. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Customs House, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to confiscate these goods and impose penalty on the appellant and it is only the Joint/Dy. Commissioner/Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, in Noida SEZ unit, who had the jurisdiction to take necessary action. The Commissioner of Customs, Noida did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate matter related to import of three consignments by the importer who was a unit located in SEZ, Noida - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida to adjudicate matter related to import of consignments by a unit in Special Economic Zone (SEZ).

In this case, the appellants, a unit located in SEZ, Noida, imported three consignments of Chinese Mobile Phones. The issue arose when there was a mis-declaration in the description and value of the goods. The Original Authority rejected the declared assessable value, confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and ordered re-exportation of the consignment, along with penalties on the appellant and personal penalties on the Director. The appellants challenged these orders before the Tribunal. The appellants argued that as per Rule 27(10) of SEZ Rules, 2006, the assessment of goods imported by a unit in SEZ should be performed by officers authorized or specified under SEZ Rules, working under the Development Commissioner of SEZ. They contended that the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, lacked jurisdiction to pass the order and cited a previous Tribunal decision in their favor. The learned AR agreed that the final order in the appellant's own case was applicable in the present case.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides and the previous decision in the appellant's case, held that the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter related to the import of the consignments by the unit in SEZ, Noida. Citing Section 53(1) of the SEZ Act, 2005, which deems SEZ as territory outside the Customs Territory of India, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi, did not have jurisdiction to confiscate the goods and impose penalties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing all the appeals.