1996 (12) TMI 76 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Customs authorities in different states, refund of amount paid by respondents, initiation of proceedings by Customs authorities in Paradip, valuation of goods cleared in Bombay.

Jurisdiction of Customs authorities: The goods imported by the respondents were cleared at Paradip Port in Orissa but were seized in Howrah, West Bengal by Customs authorities on the basis of fictitious licenses. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the Customs authorities in West Bengal had no jurisdiction to pass such order, stating that it was for the Customs authorities at Paradip to initiate proceedings against the respondents for importing goods on fictitious licenses.

Refund of amount: The Calcutta High Court had ordered the appellants to refund Rs. 50 lakhs paid by the respondents in connection with the proceedings before the West Bengal Customs authorities. The Supreme Court directed that the respondents would be entitled to the refund if they furnished adequate security to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Calcutta High Court, for repayment of the refunded amount.

Initiation of proceedings by Customs authorities in Paradip: The Supreme Court directed that appropriate action against the respondents should be initiated by the Customs authorities in Paradip within 6 weeks. If such action is initiated, the security furnished by the respondents for the refund shall be kept alive until the proceedings are concluded and for 4 weeks thereafter. If the respondents fail to furnish security, the refunded amount shall be retained by the Registrar for the Customs authorities.

Valuation of goods cleared in Bombay: In another case, the goods cleared in Bombay were subject to valuation issues. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order that the valuation of goods cleared in Bombay should be decided by the Customs authorities in Bombay. The Customs authorities in Bombay were given liberty to initiate proceedings against the respondents for valuation of the goods within six weeks.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in both cases with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional clarity and proper initiation of proceedings by the respective Customs authorities.