9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance placed in the case of MORGAN TECTRONICS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2014 (9) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that in terms of the Section 53(1) of the SEZ Act, 2005, the SEZ is deemed to be territory outside the Customs Territory of India, and the goods imported were meant for the unit in SEZ Noida. The Customs officers have no jurisdiction on the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Z. area and having a license to import the impugned goods which are to be re-exported after processing. The appellant imported certain brass scrap under the said license. D.R.I. came to know that said brass scrap imported by the appellant is not scrap, but is a prime material. Therefore the said goods were seized and adjudication took place wherein the goods were held liable for confiscation. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unit in SEZ Noida. In our view, the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Customs House, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to confiscate these goods and impose penalty on the appellant and it is only the joint/Dy. Commissioner/Asstt.Commissioner of Customs, in Noida SEZ unit, who had the jurisdiction to take necessary action. For this reason also, the impugned orders are not sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
