2005 (2) TMI 728 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Jurisdictional Conflict, Dismisses Revenue's Appeal

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to refer the case to Kolkata for jurisdictional reasons, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to lack of ... Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Seizure Issues:Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities at Kolkata vs. Mumbai in adjudicating a case of misdeclared goods seized at Mumbai.Analysis:Jurisdictional Conflict:The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Customs Authorities at Kolkata and Mumbai in adjudicating a matter concerning misdeclared goods seized at Mumbai. The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a consignment of ready-made garments and other goods that were misdeclared in terms of value, quantity, and description. The Additional Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case, confiscating the goods and imposing penalties. The importer appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who ordered the release of goods and transferred the case to Kolkata for further action, leading to the Revenue's appeal.Show Cause Notice and Waiver:The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) found fault with the delayed issuance of the Show Cause Notice, noting that the theory of waiver does not apply when goods are seized, and no order is passed within six months. Citing precedent, the Commissioner set aside the lower authority's orders based on the Assistant Collector v. Charan Das Malhotra case.Territorial Jurisdiction and Precedents:The Revenue contended that the Customs Authorities in Kolkata, not Mumbai, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. They relied on the decision in Ram Nath Jayant v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, emphasizing that the proper officer with territorial jurisdiction over the seized goods retains authority for proceedings. The Tribunal supported this argument, emphasizing the importance of 'cause of action' in determining jurisdiction.Precedents and Final Decision:The Tribunal referenced past cases like Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath to establish that Mumbai lacked jurisdiction in this matter. They found no evidence that the seized goods were clandestinely cleared from Kolkata Port. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to refer the case to Kolkata for jurisdictional reasons, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to lack of merit.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the jurisdictional conflict between Kolkata and Mumbai Customs Authorities, emphasizing the importance of 'cause of action' and past precedents in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for adjudicating cases involving seized goods.