1996 (6) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Rules on Jurisdictional Issue in Customs Appeal

SIDDHARTH TUBES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUS., INDORE

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal solely based on the jurisdictional issue, holding that the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, had jurisdiction ... EXIM Policy - DEEC Scheme - Demand Issues:Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore in adjudicating the case under the DEEC Scheme; Compliance with conditions for duty-free import under Advance Licences; Confiscation of imported material under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of penalty and fine; Limitation period for demanding duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.Jurisdiction Issue Analysis:The appellants contested the Commissioner's jurisdiction in adjudicating the case, arguing that action under Section 111(o) for imports under the DEEC Scheme should be taken by the Customs authorities at the port of import. Citing precedents like Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Metro Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, the appellants emphasized that jurisdiction for raising duty demands lies with the Custom House through which goods were cleared. The Tribunal concurred, holding that under the DEEC Scheme, the port of import handles all entries and compliance. The decision highlighted that the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, not the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Indore, had jurisdiction over the duty demand in this case, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order solely based on jurisdiction grounds.Compliance with Duty-Free Import Conditions Analysis:The case involved the alleged diversion and misuse of exempted raw materials under the DEEC Scheme, leading to a demand for customs duty of Rs. 87,03,898 on imported HR Coils. The department contended that the appellants failed to use the imported material for manufacturing export goods, breaching duty-free import conditions. The Commissioner upheld the demand, citing suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the Tribunal's decision focused solely on jurisdiction, not delving into the merits of the duty demand.Confiscation and Penalty Analysis:Apart from the duty demand, the seized HR Coils were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a fine of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed, along with a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 on the appellants. The department argued that the goods were misdeclared and improperly imported, justifying the confiscation and penalties. However, the Tribunal's decision did not address these aspects, as the appeal was allowed solely on jurisdictional grounds.Limitation Period Analysis:Regarding the limitation period for demanding duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellants contended that no suppression of facts occurred, as all relevant information was submitted to the Customs authorities. The department argued that the appellants knowingly made false declarations, justifying the extended limitation period. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the limitation issue, focusing solely on the jurisdictional aspect in setting aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal solely based on the jurisdictional issue, holding that the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, had jurisdiction over the duty demand under the DEEC Scheme, not the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Indore. The decision did not address the merits of the duty demand, confiscation, penalties, or the limitation period, emphasizing the limited scope of the ruling on jurisdictional grounds.