2022 (5) TMI 1370 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal sets aside order for lack of jurisdiction, directs return of goods to appellant

M/s Yogesh Kumar Vishnani Versus Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) Jaipur I

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the lack of jurisdiction by the Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur. The Tribunal ... Smuggling - recovery of foreign goods from the appellant by way of town seizure - Gold Coins - 5 Apple I-phones - filter Cigarettes - Drum Bright Blue premium quality tobacco - Cosmetic items - Food Supplements - baggage rules - HELD THAT:- The whole case of the revenue is made out on the allegation that the appellant had arrived from Dubai at the Ahmadabad Airport, which is the Customs Station. Thus, for the allegations contained in the show cause notice, particularly, there being violation of the baggage Rules, the jurisdiction in the matter was with the Customs Commissionerate at Ahmadabad. In the circumstances, it is found that whole proceedings by the Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur is wholly without jurisdiction. Further the appellant was intercepted by the Police at Ajmer who are not the customs officers. The whole burden or onus to establish the smuggled nature of goods/gold is on the revenue which have not been discharged. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, it is a case of town seizure. The proceedings are ab initio void, wholly holding without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The respondents Customs Authority is directed to return the seized/confiscated goods to the appellant forthwith, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the appellant or his authorised representative - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur.2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act.3. Declaration and valuation of seized goods.4. Personal use vs. commercial intent of imported goods.5. Penalties and confiscation orders.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur:The appellant argued that the jurisdiction for the case lies with the Customs Commissionerate at Ahmedabad, as the appellant arrived from Dubai at Ahmedabad Airport, a Customs Station. The Tribunal found that the entire proceedings by the Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Union of India vs. Paradip Phosphates Ltd., which held that jurisdiction lies with the Customs Authorities at the port of importation. Consequently, the proceedings were declared ab initio void.2. Applicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act:The appellant contended that the provisions of Section 123, which shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases of smuggled goods, should not apply as the initial interception was by the police, not customs officers. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court case of Gianchand & others, which held that when initial seizure is by police, the burden to prove the smuggled nature of goods lies on the revenue. The Tribunal found that this burden was not discharged by the Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur.3. Declaration and Valuation of Seized Goods:The appellant claimed that he had declared the goods at Ahmedabad Airport, and the valuation of the goods was based on internet prices, not in accordance with any valuation rules. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence from Ahmedabad Customs to confirm or deny the appellant’s declaration. The Tribunal also acknowledged the appellant's argument that the goods had undergone depreciation and some had expired, affecting their valuation.4. Personal Use vs. Commercial Intent of Imported Goods:The appellant maintained that the goods were for personal use and not for sale, supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal took into account the appellant's statement that he was coerced into recording that the goods were for sale. The Tribunal noted that no duty was demanded in the adjudication order, making the allegations for confiscation redundant.5. Penalties and Confiscation Orders:The Additional Commissioner had ordered the absolute confiscation of certain goods and imposed penalties. The Tribunal, however, found the entire proceedings void due to lack of jurisdiction and ordered the return of the seized goods to the appellant within 30 days.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to the lack of jurisdiction by the Customs (Preventive) at Jaipur. The Tribunal directed the Customs Authority to return the seized/confiscated goods to the appellant or his authorized representative within 30 days.