9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to adjudicate under section 122 - Legality of the seizure by the proper officer in Madras - Disposal of goods due to their nature Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to adjudicate under section 122: The judgment revolves around the jurisdictional aspect of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to adjudicate under section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contended that only the respondent had jurisdiction to adjudicate under section 122 and that the seizure of goods within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent necessitated his sole authority for adjudication. However, the judgment analyzed the statutory provisions and notifications related to the appointment of Collectors of Customs, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the Collectors of Customs was not contingent upon the situs of the goods at the time of adjudication. It was established that the proper officer's power to seize goods is assigned by the Board or the Collector of Customs within their respective territorial jurisdictions, and the existence of goods within the territorial jurisdiction at the time of seizure is crucial, not their continued presence for adjudication. The judgment upheld the decision of Kailasam, J., stating that the Collector of Customs at Calcutta had jurisdiction to adjudicate, and the referral of the matter to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, for further proceedings was lawful. Legality of the seizure by the proper officer in Madras: The second ground raised by the appellants questioned the legality of the seizure by the proper officer in Madras, contending that there was no reasonable belief that the goods were contraband. However, it was noted that this specific ground was not presented in that form before Kailasam, J. The judgment highlighted that the affidavit in support of the petitions did not challenge the legality of the seizure on the basis of the proper officer's belief. Additionally, the respondent's sworn statement in the counter-affidavit indicated satisfaction with a prima facie case as revealed by the investigation at Calcutta. Consequently, the second ground raised by the appellants was deemed to fail. Disposal of goods due to their nature: The final contention addressed the nature of the goods seized and the potential damage or loss in value due to the passage of time. While acknowledging the validity of this concern, the judgment refrained from issuing specific directions for the disposal of the goods at that stage. Instead, it directed that the goods should be either returned to the appellants upon payment of their value or sold promptly to prevent any deterioration in value. The judgment emphasized the need for swift action regarding the goods, irrespective of the eventual outcome of the adjudication proceedings at Calcutta. In conclusion, the appeals and the petition were dismissed, with each issue thoroughly analyzed and adjudicated upon by the court.
|
