9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of proper officer for adjudication in a Customs matter involving diversion of imported goods under DEEC Scheme. Analysis: The appeal was against an order confiscating 37 drums of MPDSA and 6 drums of PNA, allowing redemption on payment of fines and imposing penalties. The goods were intercepted en route from Jamnagar to Bombay, related to imports under DEEC Licences cleared through Bombay Customs. The appellants were accused of contravening Import Control Order by removing goods received under the DEEC Scheme and evading import duty. The plea was that goods were cleared by Bombay Customs after satisfying export obligations, supported by discharge certificates. The issue was whether the Collector of Customs, Rajkot, had jurisdiction to adjudicate. The appellants argued that since goods were cleared through Bombay Customs with satisfaction of export obligations, only the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had jurisdiction. They cited precedents supporting this view. The Respondent contended that the goods were diverted from the factory in Jamnagar, falling under the jurisdiction of excise officers in Rajkot. They argued that the goods were seized in transit, indicating diversion. The Tribunal observed that the matter pertained to Customs, not excise duty evasion. Goods were imported through Bombay Port under the DEEC Scheme, cleared by Bombay Customs with satisfaction of export obligations. The proper officer at Bombay had allowed clearance and reported fulfillment of obligations to the licensing authority. The Tribunal held that the Collector of Customs, Bombay, was the proper officer to adjudicate in such cases, as consistent with previous decisions. The lack of jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Rajkot, was noted, and the order was set aside. The appeal was allowed, with consequential relief of the penalty deposit. In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in Customs matters involving imported goods under specific schemes. The decision highlighted the role of the proper officer who allowed clearance in determining jurisdiction for adjudication. The judgment clarified that the Collector of Customs, through whose port goods were cleared, holds jurisdiction in cases of alleged violations or fraud. The ruling set a precedent for future cases involving similar jurisdictional issues in Customs matters.
|
