9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of confiscation and penalty by Collector of Central Excise and Customs under Customs Act, 1962; Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority; Validity of extensions under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; Interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The Rule challenged an order of confiscation and penalty imposed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that the order was without jurisdiction as the goods seized were not returned within six months, and no notice under Section 124 was served. They also argued that the extensions made under Section 110(2) were illegal. The jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority was challenged based on Section 4(1) of the Act, which the petitioners claimed did not empower the authority to function as the Collector of Customs in Calcutta. 2. The court found no merit in the contentions regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, who was also the Collector of Customs, West Bengal. The continued seizure of goods did not invalidate the confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The court referenced previous judgments, including the decision in Charan Das Malhotra's case, to support its finding that failure to issue a show cause notice within the time prescribed by Section 110 did not affect the power to initiate confiscation proceedings under Section 124. 3. The court further discussed the interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that the Central Government had the authority to appoint more than one officer as the Collector of the same area. By analyzing the notifications issued under Section 4(1), the court concluded that the Collector of Land Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal, had jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal, including Calcutta, based on administrative division and distribution of work among Collectors. 4. The court decided not to delve into the merits of the adjudication order due to the petitioners' submission. It granted the petitioners liberty to file an appeal within two months and emphasized that the Tribunal should consider the diligence shown in pursuing the writ proceeding when evaluating the cause for presenting the appeal. The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
|
