CESTAT Mumbai: Penalty overturned under Customs Act, adjudged without jurisdiction. Collector of Customs responsibility.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under the Customs Act, 1962, as it was deemed to be without jurisdiction. The adjudicator erred in adjudicating and imposing the penalty, which should have been done by the Collector of Customs at the port of entry, Kandla. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 25,000 was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of adjudication and penalty imposition under Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the case where three containers were found with concealed Brass Pipes while being unloaded by the Customs and Central Excise Patrol Party. The individuals present could not explain the presence of the restricted Brass Pipes, leading to the seizure of the items and issuance of a show cause notice. The notice alleged abetment by certain individuals in arranging clearances for the Brass Pipes. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot adjudicated the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant under Section 112(a)(i) for violating Section 111(l), 111(m), and 111(d) related to the import of Brass Pipes.

The appellant argued that the notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was without jurisdiction. The adjudicator upheld the power of seizure for incorrectly declared goods but erred in adjudicating and imposing a penalty. It was established that goods imported in contravention of the EXIM POLICY requirement should be adjudicated by the Collector of Customs at the port of entry, in this case, Kandla, as per legal precedents. Therefore, the penal action taken by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot, was deemed to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, set aside the order of penalty imposed solely on the appellant as it was determined to be without jurisdiction, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

---