TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal sets aside confiscation order due to lack of proof, remands for reevaluation</h1> <h3>NATWARLAL JETHALAL SOLANKI & OTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD</h3> NATWARLAL JETHALAL SOLANKI & OTHERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 257 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Jurisdictional question of whether Bhuj town falls within 50 kilometers width from the coast.2. Confiscation of seized silver under Sections 113(c) and 113(1) of the Customs Act.3. Applicability of Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act to the town of Bhuj.Jurisdictional Question - Bhuj Town's Distance from Coast:The appeals involved a jurisdictional question regarding whether Bhuj town falls within 50 kilometers in width from the coast, impacting the application of Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act. The contention raised by the appellants was that if Bhuj does not fall within this specified distance, the orders of confiscation and penalty would be unsustainable. The adjudicating authority failed to address this crucial issue, leading to the need for a remand to determine the geographical distance accurately.Confiscation under Sections 113(c) and 113(1) - Lack of Proof:The Addl. Collector had ordered confiscation of the seized silver under Sections 113(c) and 113(1) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to establish key elements required for confiscation under Section 113(c). The seized silver was not proven to have been brought near the land frontier or coast for export purposes from a non-customs location, rendering the confiscation under Section 113(c) unsustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside this order and emphasized the necessity for proper evidence to determine liability under Section 113(1).Applicability of Chapter IV-B to Bhuj Town:The issue of whether Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act applied to Bhuj town was a significant point of contention. The appellants argued that Bhuj was not within the specified area where Chapter IV-B would be applicable, challenging the legality of the proceedings initiated against them. The Tribunal noted conflicting evidence presented by both parties regarding Bhuj's distance from the coast. It emphasized that a Public Notice cited by the Collector had no statutory force and could not conclusively establish Bhuj's location within the 50-kilometer width. The matter was remanded to the Addl. Collector for a fresh determination considering the evidence and jurisdictional question.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, setting aside the confiscation order under Section 113(c) and remanding the matters to the Addl. Collector for a reevaluation of the seized silver's liability under Section 113(1). The parties were granted the opportunity to present evidence, and the Addl. Collector was instructed to consider the applicability of Chapter IV-B and other relevant issues in accordance with the Tribunal's observations and the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
