1987 (6) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Calcutta Customs to take action u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Authority of Calcutta Customs to adjudicate the case.

Summary:

Jurisdiction of Calcutta Customs to Take Action u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contended that once the Bill of Entry has been assessed and goods cleared at Paradwip Port, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice u/s 124 or pass any adjudication order. It was argued that the power of the Collector of the port of import, if unsatisfied with the assessment, is limited to referring the matter to the Collector (Appeals) u/s 129(d) within one year from the date of assessment. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the order of clearance by Paradwip Customs was final and binding unless set aside by the appropriate authorities, which had not occurred.

Validity of the Seizure of Goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the validity of the seizure by Calcutta Customs, arguing that the goods had already been cleared for home consumption by Paradwip Customs and were no longer "imported goods" as defined u/s 2(25) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the Calcutta Customs had issued only a detention order, not a seizure order, and emphasized that the proper officer must have "reason to believe" goods are liable to confiscation for a valid seizure, which was not demonstrated in this case.

Authority of Calcutta Customs to Adjudicate the Case:
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction for adjudication u/s 122 of the Customs Act is territorial-cum-functional. Since the goods were imported and cleared at Paradwip Port, only Paradwip Customs or the Collector of Customs, Bhubaneswar, had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The Tribunal noted that the seizure by Calcutta Customs did not vest them with adjudication authority, and the proper course would have been to refer the matter to the Director of Revenue Intelligence or the Director of Inspections, who have all-India jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, was without jurisdiction and set it aside. The appeal was accepted, and the related miscellaneous application was dismissed as infructuous.