2001 (3) TMI 496 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:

1. Import of automatic chain making machines for making gold chains.
2. Compliance with conditions of import notification.
3. Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority.
4. Confiscation of imported machines.
5. Registration status of exporters.
6. Grounds for confiscation not cited in notice.
7. Applicability of Section 111 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellants imported automatic chain making machines used for making gold chains. The common show cause notice alleged non-compliance with the condition that import should be by a registered exporter of gems and jewellery. Duty was demanded for non-compliance with the condition that jewellery manufactured with the machines should be exported. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods, confirmed duty demand, and imposed penalties on importers.

2. The contention was raised that the machines were imported for exhibition in Delhi by the India International Trade Fair Authority in 1986. It was argued that the notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai exceeded jurisdiction, as the import location's adjudicating authority should handle the matter. Reference to case law supported this argument.

3. The departmental representative defended the Commissioner's order, stating that in cases of clandestine import, officers at the place of import and seizure can take action. The reply by Gold Link emphasized that confiscation by an officer not having jurisdiction over the import location was invalid.

4. The Tribunal clarified that confiscation based on import location jurisdiction was essential. Citing previous decisions, it emphasized that proper officers with territorial jurisdiction over import or clearance places should issue notices and pass adjudication orders.

5. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned order. Authorities with proper jurisdiction were permitted to proceed lawfully if advised.

6. For machines imported by a specific appellant, the Commissioner acknowledged their status as registered exporters during importation. However, confiscation was ordered for not using machines in jewellery manufacture and selling without permission. The Tribunal found the confiscation grounds not cited in the notice, and if applicable, would fall under a different section of the Act.

7. The appeal related to this specific appellant was allowed, setting aside the impugned order due to the confiscation grounds not cited in the notice and potential misapplication of Section 111 of the Act.