TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (9) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se out of and are directed against the Order-in-Original No. 80/Addl. Collr./1982 dated 30.11.1982 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. 3. As these appeals involve common questions of law and somewhat similar facts they were clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. 4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are : On information that Shri Jethalal Nanji Solanki of M/s. Jethalal Nanji & Co., Bhuj was exporting silver illegally out of India to Pakistan his residential and business premises were searched by the Customs Officers of Bhuj on 24.2.1982. From the residential premises 467 pieces of silver coins marked as "5 Koris" of Kutch State valued at Rs. 16,345/- and Indian curren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntentions taken by Shri Parikh was that the learned Addl. Collector had ordered confiscation of the seized silver under Section 113(c) but then there is neither allegation nor proof that the silver in question had been brought near land Frontier or the coast of India or near bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purposes of being exported from a place other than a land Customs Station or a Customs Port appointed for the loading of silver. He, therefore, urged that the confiscation of the silver under Section 113(c) is wholly illegal. 7. Shri Parikh had urged that the contention regarding Bhuj being not a specified area had been taken before the adjudicating authority but the adjudicating authority had not dealt with that aspect nor rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ometres in width from the coast of Gujarat State and Daman and Diu. Among the places mentioned, the town 'Bhuj' appears. Shri Pattekar therefore contended that there is no force in the contention of Shri Parikh that the provisions of Chapter IV-B are not applicable to the town of Bhuj. 10. As regards the liability of the seized silver confiscated under Section 113(c) the submission of Shri Pattekar was that the information received by the Department was that the main partner and the firm was exporting silver illegally out of India to Pakistan and the silver was also found within the specified area. And therefore, the Addl. Collector was right in ordering confiscation under Section 113(1). 11. In reply to Shri Pattekar's contention, Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... urged on behalf of the appellant. 15. Before an order of confiscation could be made under Section 113(1) the Department has to establish that Bhuj town or any part of it falls within 50 kilometres width from the coast of Gujarat. If Bhuj or any part of Bhuj town does not fall within 50 kilometres in width from the coast of Gujarat or Daman and Diu, then there is no scope to invoke Chapter IV-B of the Customs Act or to order confiscation under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act. The contention raised involves a question of jurisdiction of the authorities to initiate action for violation of provisions of Section 113(1) of the Customs Act. It was obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to decide its jurisdictional question befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o establish the two ingredients. The reasons given by the Addl, Collector for ordering confiscation under Section 113(c) were firstly that the party was indulging in illegal export of such silver was the specific information and secondly, the party has not been maintaining a clear account and thirdly they were kept in the specified area for the purpose of illegal export. The Addl. Collector, no where, stated that the silver in question was brought near land frontier or the coast of India or creek or tidal river for the purpose of being exported from a place other than land Customs Station or Customs Port apart from loading of silver. In the absence of such a finding the order of confiscation under Section 113(c) is not sustainable under Law....