TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Tribunal: Jurisdiction ruling favors appellants in goods confiscation case.</h1> <h3>SIDDHI VINAYAK STEEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI</h3> SIDDHI VINAYAK STEEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 324 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in Mumbai to decide on the confiscation of goods imported at Chennai under DEEC Licences.Analysis:The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in Mumbai confiscated Stainless Steel Coils and Sheets valued at Rs. 19.64 lakh, alleging they were smuggled. The appellants were given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine and personal penalties were imposed. The appellants argued that the Mumbai Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as the goods were initially imported at Chennai. They contended that the onus to prove smuggling lies on the Revenue, and presented invoices to support their claim that the goods were obtained from the local market. However, the Commissioner did not accept these contentions.The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their argument on jurisdiction, citing cases where goods cleared at one port but seized at another were adjudicated by the authorities at the port of clearance. They emphasized that since the goods were imported at Chennai, the Mumbai Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. The appellants also challenged the confiscation of goods, arguing that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence of smuggling. They highlighted that the goods were non-notified items and that invoices proved legitimate procurement.In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that the goods were imported at Chennai under an Actual User Licence and diverted to Mumbai for local sale. As per legal precedents, the contravention should be decided by the authorities at the port of importation. Therefore, the Mumbai Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order on the grounds of jurisdiction and allowed all appeals in favor of the appellants, providing consequential reliefs.This judgment primarily addresses the issue of jurisdiction concerning the confiscation of goods imported at Chennai but seized in Mumbai. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction based on the port of importation and sets aside the impugned Order due to the Mumbai Commissioner's lack of authority in deciding the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
