2001 (2) TMI 629 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Excise officers to seize goods cleared by Customs.

Analysis:
The appeals involved a crucial issue regarding the jurisdiction of Excise officers to seize goods that were lawfully imported and cleared by Customs. The primary argument put forth by the appellant was that once the goods had been legally imported, cleared by Customs, and taken to their factory premises, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (CCE), Madras, had no authority to seize the goods. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court ruling to support their stance. They emphasized that any allegations of mis-declaration should have been addressed by the Customs authorities through due process under the Customs Act.

In response, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that under a specific notification, the CCE, Madras, was designated as the Collector of Customs within its jurisdiction. The DR contended that since the goods required an end-use certificate from Central Excise authorities, the CCE, Madras, had jurisdiction over the matter, especially considering the location of the appellants' factory premises. Additionally, a report from the Commissioner supported the belief that the goods were seized due to suspected smuggling activities, justifying the actions taken by the CCE, Madras.

Upon careful consideration of both arguments, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions. It was noted that the impugned goods had been cleared by Customs in Madras after due process and examination. The Tribunal referenced past cases where it was established that once goods were cleared by one Customs authority, another authority did not have the jurisdiction to seize or adjudicate the same goods. The Tribunal cited specific instances where similar issues had been addressed, emphasizing that adjudication should occur at the Customs House where the goods were initially cleared. The Tribunal concluded that the power conferred upon the CCE, Madras, as the Collector of Customs did not extend to seizing goods lawfully cleared by Customs. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.