TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (7) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Exemption Entitlement Certificate Book No. 005173, dated 12-9-1983. In part 'C' of the DEEC book, the list of materials to be imported under the scheme was shown as (1) 33 metric tonnes white card board, other than ivory board, (2) 21 metric tonnes of Kraft paper and (3) 15 metric tonnes of polythene moulding powder for a total CIF value of Rs. 5 lakhs. In part 'E' of the DEEC book, the resultant export products were shown as "Frozen shrimps, frogs legs, cuttle fish" and other marine products, duly packed in the packing material made of the items allowed for import. The net weight of the packing materials made of white card board, kraft paper and polythene moulding powder was not to be less than 30 metric tonnes, 19.09 metric tonnes and 14.28 metric tonnes respectively for an FOB value of Rs. 80 lakhs to foreign countries within six months from the date of clearance of the first consignment against the advance licence. The exporters imported 32.9835 metric tonnes white card board under Bill of Entry No. FF. 931/84, dated 8-3-1984, 15 metric tonnes high density polythene moulding powder under bill of entry No. FF. 944/84, dated 9.3.1984 and 11,139 metric tonnes kraft paper unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mported white card board, kraft paper and polythene moulding powder were converted into cartons and polythene sheets, as specified in the advance licence and DEEC book. As it appeared from the scrutiny of the seized documents that the exporters had contravened the provisions of clause (d) and (e) of Government of India Notification No. 117/78, dated 9-6-1978 (as amended), and that they were liable to pay duty on the imported white card board and also as they had made wrong declaration in the shipping bill for getting the export obligation discharged, a show cause notice was issued to them under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, calling for their explanation as to why they should not pay duty on the imported white card board and why they should not be penalised under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.  In the written representation the appellants had contested the jurisdiction of the customs department and had also argued that Section 113 of the Customs Act was not applicable as it related to only export goods and the present matter related to import of packing material only. 5.  The Learned Collector did not accept the contentions of the appellants and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Government. A declaration was to be filed by the appellants before the Asstt. Collector binding themselves to pay on demand an amount equal to the duty leviable, but for the exemption, on the imported materials in respect of which the conditions laid down in the notification had not been complied with (this declaration was filed before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras). There is, therefore, no manner of doubt that the Assistant Collector of Customs or the Collector of Customs, Madras was the proper authority who was the return a finding of non-compliance with the conditions laid down in the notification and to demand customs duty in respect of the quantity of goods in respect of which the conditions were not complied with. It is, of course, true that the use or utilisation of the imported materials in the present case was not in the Madras Collector's jurisdiction. If the Cochin Collector had reason to believe that the conditions laid down in the notification had been violated necessitating proceedings against the appellants which could have led to demand of duty, penalty, etc., the proper course would have been for him to report the matter to the Collector of Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise, Cochin, as the Collector of Customs in his jurisdiction. Evidently, it does not extend to Madras Port for which the Collector is the Collector of Customs, Madras, vide Notification No. 36, dated 1.2.1963. There are, of course, a few officers appointed as Collectors with all-India jurisdiction such as the Director of Revenue Intelligence but the Collector of Customs, Cochin is not one among them. In these circumstances, we hold that the Collector of Customs, Cochin had no jurisdiction to demand duty in the present case and consequently, we set aside the demand. 12.  Thus, we are now left with only the penalty imposed by the Collector on the appellants. The order does not in terms spell out the provision of the Customs Act under which the penalty has been imposed. However, the show cause notice called upon the appellants to explain why, in the circumstances stated in the notice, a penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. We have, therefore, to proceed on the basis that penalty has in fact been imposed under Section 114, though it is not clearly stated so. The Cochin Collector, in any event, could not have imposed any penalty f....