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 overturns Customs Collector's orders due to lack of jurisdiction, citing prior decisions</h1> <h3>BLISS IMPEX CORPORATION, COCHIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> BLISS IMPEX CORPORATION, COCHIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 272 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Jurisdictional challenge to the orders passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin.2. Allegations of mis-declaration in shipping bills and duty demands on imported goods.3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. Jurisdictional Challenge:The appellants challenged the orders passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin, questioning his jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases and demand duty on imported materials. The appellants contended that the goods were imported through Madras Port duty-free under Notification No. 117/78-Cus., and the proceedings were initiated in Cochin Custom House for exporting marine products. The appellants relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal, including the case of Metro Exports v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, where it was held that the Collector of Customs, Cochin lacked jurisdiction in similar cases. The Tribunal, after examining the matter, concurred with the appellants' arguments and set aside the impugned orders based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Cochin.2. Mis-declaration and Duty Demands:In multiple cases, the Collector of Customs, Cochin confirmed duty demands on imported White Cardboard and imposed penalties on the appellants for alleged mis-declaration in shipping bills. The appellants were accused of not using the imported materials for packing marine products meant for export but mis-declaring the packing materials to evade duty. Show Cause Notices were issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin, invoking a longer time-limit of 5 years. However, the appellants argued that such notices should have been issued by the Collector of Customs, not the Assistant Collector, post the amendment of Section 28 of the Customs Act in 1985. The Tribunal did not delve into these issues as the appeals were allowed solely on the jurisdictional challenge.3. Penalties Imposed:Penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act were imposed on the appellants by the Collector of Customs, Cochin for the alleged mis-declaration and evasion of duty. However, since the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders based on jurisdictional grounds, it did not delve into the discussion of these penalties or other points raised during the hearing. The appeals were allowed solely on the lack of jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Cochin to adjudicate the cases and demand duty on the imported materials.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues of jurisdictional challenge, mis-declaration, duty demands, and penalties imposed, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 