Doctrines of merger and customs territorial jurisdiction defeated a demand based on non-Bombay imports and unsupported recovery action.

A writ petition challenging the original customs order and detention order remained maintainable because dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-condonation of delay did not attract the doctrine of merger; the original order therefore remained open to independent challenge. Customs demand and recovery were also unsustainable because the Commissioner's jurisdiction was confined to imports and exports through Bombay, while the record showed that the goods were not imported through that port and the licensing authority had shifted the port of registration to New Delhi. In the absence of particulars linking the demand to Bombay clearances, the demand rested on presumption and the consequential recovery action was illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original and the detention order was maintainable despite dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-condonation of delay; and (ii) Whether the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay had jurisdiction to demand customs duty and enforce recovery where the goods were not imported through the Bombay port.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original and the detention order was maintainable despite dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-condonation of delay.

Analysis: Where an appeal is dismissed only because delay is not condoned, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The order impugned in the appeal remains open to independent challenge, and the later dismissal of the appeal on limitation does not bar a separate challenge to the original order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay had jurisdiction to demand customs duty and enforce recovery where the goods were not imported through the Bombay port.

Analysis: The Commissioner's jurisdiction extended to imports and exports effected through the Bombay port. The record showed that the goods were not imported at Bombay, that the port of registration had been changed to New Delhi by the licensing authority, and that imports, exports, and redemption of the bond had been completed at New Delhi. In the absence of any import through Bombay and in the absence of particulars in the show cause notice linking the demand to actual Bombay clearances, the demand rested only on presumption and could not be sustained. Recovery action based on that demand was likewise illegal.

Conclusion: The demand and the detention order were jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, and the impugned demand and consequential recovery action were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs demand can be sustained only by reference to imports within the officer's territorial jurisdiction and on the basis of concrete particulars of the clearances; a demand founded merely on the place of licence registration, without actual import through that port, is without jurisdiction and unenforceable.

---