9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y including its continental self and exclusive economic zone, whether or not there is express provision in the Act or statute to stretch the same beyond the country s territory since the same would amount to encroachment upon the territorial authority of other State. It is therefore, defined in the Statute of the country that the said Act has its application within the territorial limits of the country. The principle that whether violation of an act has an adverse effect to the State s interest, the same violation is to be dealt by the State itself and the violator is to be penalised irrespective of his/her nationality or place of residence. It is in this prospective, the jurisdiction of sovereign State is to be understood though the gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further Appellant Prerna had never rescinded from her statement and in view of Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, such admission needs no further proof to hold appellants guilty of violation of the Section 112(a) of Customs Act - Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed. - C/89693 & 89695/18 - A/85065-85066/2020 - Dated:- 22-1-2020 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Manoj Kumar, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on appellants M/s. Sevile Product and Ms. Prerna Singh, CEO, both based in Dubai, by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenging legality of the said order passed by the Commissioner (Customs). 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, Learned Counsel Mr. Akhilesh Kangsia for the appellant argued that prior to amendment to the Customs Act 1962 introduced on 29-03-2018, the same was extended only to the whole of India and not beyond India for which operation of the Act beyond the territory of India cannot be made applicable to the overseas suppliers of Dubai, UAE and its NRI CEO and subject them to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. With reference to the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanmughavilas Cashew Indus 1990 (3) SCC 481, he argued that Indian statute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign country even though he/she was an Indian for which he prays to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 4. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent department Mr Manoj Kumar argued in support of the reasoning and rationality found in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs but conceded that the Commissioner had not dealt with the jurisdictional issue while confirming penalties under section 112 of the Customs Act on the appellants. 5. I had heard the arguments at length on the other day and perused the case record. 6. The issue of jurisdiction of Customs Act and its application to the appellant is primarily challenged in the present appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate and enforce its law in the territory. The crime is said tobe committed even partly in a state s territory when any essential constituent element itself is consummated there. Therefore, when an offence s adverse effect endangers a State s security or Government s function, extra territorial jurisdiction is enforced. Customs law from an international Criminal law prospective requires a consideration of the classification between Crime law and administrative law and the same is required to be placed under the administrative penal law though in a legal sense it is not penal but nevertheless retributive (Gist has been borrowed from the article titled Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Customs Enforcement among the U.S., Canada and Mexico written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued by Learned Counsel for the appellant that judgement of the Tribunal in the Hi Lingos Co. v. Collector of Customs case has been confirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court (reported at 1997 (95) E.L.T. A147 (SC) and it was the first decision on the jurisdiction issue apart from C.K Kunhammed V. Collector of Central Excise Customs 1992 (62) E.L.T. 146 judgement which had dealt with application of Private International law on foreign nationals. However, going by the findings in Hi Lingos case, it can be noticed that penalty under Section 112 was set aside not on the ground of jurisdiction and there was a specific finding made by one of the members in the said judgement at Para 4 (8) that such mis-declaration of description of goods was with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
