2000 (2) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi to pass the impugned order.
2. Validity of the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Mis-declaration and seizure of imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi
The primary issue raised by the appellants was the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi to pass the impugned order. The appellants argued that since the goods were cleared from Calcutta Port under the proper Bill of Entry, the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta was the 'Proper Officer' to initiate action for the seizure and subsequent confiscation of the goods. They cited various legal precedents, including the decision of the Apex Court in UOI v. Ramnarain Bishwanath and other tribunal decisions, to support their contention that the jurisdiction lay with the officer who had territorial control over the place of import and clearance.

Opposing this, the respondent argued that the appellants had not raised the jurisdiction issue during the adjudication proceedings and hence could not do so at the appellate stage. The respondent emphasized that the goods were seized within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, making him the Proper Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 111 and imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

The tribunal concluded that the objection to jurisdiction could be raised at any stage as it goes to the root of the case. However, they found that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from the precedents cited by the appellants. The tribunal noted that the goods were mis-declared and seized in Delhi, thereby providing the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, the jurisdiction to proceed with confiscation and penalty actions. The tribunal rejected the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Penalties Imposed Under Section 112
The appellants contended that the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act were invalid as the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, lacked jurisdiction. They argued that the Proper Officer, who had jurisdiction over the imported goods, should have initiated the penalty proceedings. The respondent countered that the penalties were imposed based on the contravention of provisions under Section 111, which made the goods liable for confiscation and the persons involved liable for penalties under Section 112.

The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed, stating that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, had the authority to initiate and conclude penalty proceedings since the goods were seized within his jurisdiction. The tribunal noted that the mis-declaration and subsequent actions taken by the Delhi Customs authorities justified the penalties imposed.

3. Mis-declaration and Seizure of Imported Goods
The case involved the seizure of goods that were allegedly mis-declared as 'construction material' and cleared as diplomatic cargo. The appellants argued that the goods were cleared under a proper Bill of Entry and that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, had no authority to seize and confiscate the goods. The respondent maintained that the goods were mis-declared and seized within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, who had the authority to take action.

The tribunal found that the mis-declaration of goods broke the nexus between the Bill of Entry and the seized goods. They observed that the mis-declaration had the effect of making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 and justified the actions taken by the Delhi Customs authorities. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, had the jurisdiction to seize the goods and initiate proceedings for their confiscation and the imposition of penalties.

Conclusion
The tribunal rejected the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, and upheld the penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The tribunal found that the mis-declaration of goods justified the seizure and subsequent actions taken by the Delhi Customs authorities, thereby affirming the validity of the impugned order.