Tribunal Upholds Customs Jurisdiction Over EOU Goods

MAMTA TWISTERS P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

MAMTA TWISTERS P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 318 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:
Jurisdiction of Customs officers over goods from a 100% EOU, Confiscation and penalties imposed, Applicability of Section 28(1) of the Act, Validity of redemption fine, Imposition of penalties under Section 112, Commissioner (Appeals) orders upheld.

Jurisdiction of Customs officers over goods from a 100% EOU:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, had goods clandestinely removed and seized by Customs officers. The Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, and officers under him seized the goods enroute after clearance from the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the jurisdiction of the Customs officers for seizure and confiscation of goods removed in violation of warehousing conditions. The Commissioner of Central Excise has jurisdiction over 100% EOUs, but Customs officers' powers remain intact. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision on jurisdiction was deemed legally sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Confiscation and penalties imposed:
The original authority confiscated the imported polyester yarn and imposed fines and penalties on the appellant company and its Power Attorney Holder. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty on the company under Section 112 but upheld other penalties and the redemption fine. The decision was based on the absence of a proposal for penalty in the show cause notice. As affected persons did not appeal, their penalties were not interfered with.

Applicability of Section 28(1) of the Act and Validity of redemption fine:
The demand for duty against the appellant company under Section 28(1) was set aside due to jurisdictional issues. However, the confiscation of goods and redemption fine were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), with consequences under Section 125 if redemption is chosen.

Imposition of penalties under Section 112:
Penalties under Section 112 were imposed on the appellant company and its Power Attorney Holder. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty on the Power Attorney Holder but set aside the penalty on the company as it was not proposed in the show cause notice.

Commissioner (Appeals) orders upheld:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals after considering the submissions and records. The Commissioner (Appeals) findings on jurisdiction were supported, emphasizing the continued jurisdiction of Customs officers over goods clandestinely removed from a 100% EOU. The decision highlighted the administrative guidelines allocating jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Central Excise while affirming the powers of Customs officers. The legal sustainability of the Commissioner (Appeals) order led to the dismissal of the appeals.