9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which arrived from Kolkata on 20-11-2002. The said goods were cleared through Calcutta Customs earlier under Bill of Entry No. 278108 dated 30-10-2002 in the name of M/s. Deepak Enterprises, Kolkata, and in the course of examination, it was found that the said goods were misdeclared in terms of value, quantity, description and later the case was handed over to R I of Preventive Commissionerate of Mumbai Customs on 25-2-2003. Thereafter, detailed investigations were carried out and the case was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, by which goods were confiscated and CVD of Rs. 6,941/-, which has been short levied, has been confirmed and an option to redeem the goods confiscated was given on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Nath Jayant v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 312 (Tribunal) wherein it is held as under: The proper officer having territorial jurisdiction over the sites of the seized goods will not lose his authority to initiate proceedings for confiscation or penalty merely because the goods were initially imported and cleared for home consumption by another proper officer. To the extent the clearance that was given u/s 47 by the proper officer at Kolkata Port did not correspond to the goods seized by the Customs authorities, Mumbai . 6.The facts covered by the aforesaid decision relates to the seizure of various items imported in India and the notices had acquired possession or otherwise concerned in carrying, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d supra and relied upon by the Department does not establish the fact where and how the misdeclaration was arrived at. Furthermore, there is no material on record that the goods seized at Mumbai were clandestinely cleared from Kolkata Port. Though the decision of the Tribunal in Ramnath Jayant seeks to distinguish the ratio held in Ram Narain Bishwanath along with other cases adhering to the factum of cause of action , which is the basis for the civil court s jurisdiction and such a phrase is unknown to the Customs Act. In any case, there is no material that the goods under seizure were misdeclared at Kolkata Port. Therefore, in our considered view, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), has rightly referred the matter to the authorities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
