9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dubai, UAE or not? The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon ble President with a request to constitute a Larger Bench to decide the above issue. - C/51953 & 52105/2019 - Interim Order Nos. IO/7-8/2020-SM(BR) - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri B.L. Narasimhan, for the Appellant. Shri Y. Singh, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER Both the appeals are having common issue, therefore, both appeals are decided by a common order. 2. The appellant is a limited company incorporated in Dubai, UAE. By way of the impugned orders, penalty of ₹ 13 lakhs and ₹ 23 lakhs respectively have been imposed under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 alleging that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tendered her statement, is also a Non-Resident Indian. Therefore, the provisions of Customs Act cannot be extended to them. Once it is held that the provision of Custom Act are not applicable to the appellant, imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. 5. To support his argument he relied the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in British India Steam Navigation v. Shanmughavilas Indus reported at 1990 (3) SCC 481 = 1990 (48) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). Further, relied on the decision in the case of Relax Safety Industries v. CC, Mumbai - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 652 (Tri. - Mum.). He also placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) HI Lingos Co. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay - 1994 (72) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de, etc. and articles to hold that the Customs Act has extra territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that the discussion on all these laws are irrelevant when Customs Act under Section 1 specifically defines the application of this statute. The discussion on municipal law and other laws may be relevant in those cases where the relevant act is silent on the territorial jurisdiction itself, there was no occasion for the Learned Single Member to resort to other enactments and/or articles. Hence, the findings are irrelevant. Further, the Learned Single Member has ignored the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HI Lingos Co. Ltd. (supra). 7. Further, the Learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Maheshwari Solvent Ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g applicability only within India, the powers of the Collector exercising his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Customs Act, would not stand extended to impose any personal penalty on the party/firm/company who are beyond the Indian territory. The said decision has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court in 1998 (95) A47 (S.C.). Further, this Tribunal in the case of Relax Safety Industries (supra) held that the Collector finds that he was a person living in the United States who was instrumental in supplying these goods and in the mis declaration of these goods. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that he was a resident of United States and the provisions of the Customs Act would not apply to him. This contention has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
