2008 (2) TMI 402 - HC - Customs

ACMM lacks jurisdiction in criminal case; orders invalid. Complaint referred to Mumbai court for further action.

The court held that the ACMM, New Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint, and the orders issued by the ACMM were invalid. The complaint ... Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Court - M/s. J.R. Electronics (which was later reconstituted as J.R. Consumer Electronics Private Limited) had been importing Akai brand colour TV sets in semi-knocked down (“SKD”) form through the port of Mumbai by misdeclaring the same as components of colour TVs. The factory premises of M/s. J.R. Electronics at Noida, U.P., where the colour TVs were assembled, were searched by the Officers of the DRI, New Delhi – held that ACMM, New Delhi did not have jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent DRI against the petitioners - court at Mumbai will proceed to deal with the complaint from the stage of its presentation to it and decided afresh about taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the accused uninfluenced by the impugned order passed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi. Issues Involved:1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court2. Validity of Orders Issued by the ACMM, New Delhi3. Procedure for Returning the Complaint to the Appropriate CourtIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court:The principal submission was that the import of goods and all related transactions occurred in Mumbai, thus the criminal court in Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint. The complaint alleged that the evasion of customs duty occurred at the time of import in Mumbai, and all significant actions, including the issuance of a show cause notice and adjudication, took place in Mumbai. Consequently, the criminal complaint should be returned to the appropriate court in Mumbai. The court agreed, stating, 'no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi,' and emphasized that the alleged misdeclaration or under-invoicing of goods occurred in Mumbai.2. Validity of Orders Issued by the ACMM, New Delhi:The impugned orders dated 17th December 2003 and 6th July 2004 issued by the ACMM, New Delhi, were challenged. The court noted that the ACMM, New Delhi, lacked the jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint, making the orders invalid. The court referenced the Supreme Court's principle that 'the criminal courts having territorial jurisdiction in the port where the imports took place will alone be competent to try the criminal case concerning such import.'3. Procedure for Returning the Complaint to the Appropriate Court:The court directed that the criminal complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in Mumbai. It was instructed that the court at Mumbai would proceed to deal with the complaint from the stage of its presentation and decide afresh about taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the accused. The court stated, 'the inevitable conclusion in the case on hand is that the complaint of the Respondent has to be returned by the learned MM, New Delhi to the Respondent for being presented in the appropriate court.'Conclusion:The court concluded that the ACMM, New Delhi, did not have jurisdiction to try the criminal complaint filed by the DRI against the petitioners. Consequently, the orders dated 17th December 2003 and 6th July 2004 were set aside. The criminal complaint was directed to be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate court in Mumbai. The court at Mumbai was instructed to proceed with the complaint from its presentation stage and decide afresh about taking cognizance of the offences and issuing summons to the accused. The parties were directed to appear before the ACMM, New Delhi, for further consequential directions.