2000 (4) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onfiscation of 178 rolls of P.U. leather cloth under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the packings used to cover the said item, realisation of various amounts of duty from three of the appellants under Section 28 of the Customs Act, confisction of ball bearings of third country origin under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, confiscation of miscellaneous Indian goods under Section 119 of the said Act with redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- and confiscation of a truck under Section 115(2) with option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. One lakh. 2. We have heard Shri Madhav Rao, ld. Advocate for M/s. S.R. Textiles, Ananta Textiles and Poshish Furnishers, Shri H.O. Arora, ld. Advocate for M/s. S.K.N. Business Group, M/s.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the impugned order. The jurisdictional point was also adopted by the ld. Advocates and Consultant appearing for the other appellants before us. It was contended that the imports having taken place at the Calcutta Port where the Bills of Entry were filed and the Import licence having been furnished before the Customs authorities at Calcutta Port and the Bills of Entry having been assessed by the Customs at Calcutta after due verification of the details of the goods and having allowed clearance thereof with exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. for PU leather cloth and PVC leather cloth, only the Customs authorities having jurisdiction over Calcutta Port could initiate proceedings in the matter. The issuance of show cause notice by Ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cases would be legal only when such initiation and adjudication is performed by the Competent Officer of Customs who were incharge of the import and clearances at the Port of import and not Officers having jurisdiction over the seized goods. In the case of Union of India v. Ram Narain Bishwanath [1997 (96) E.L.T. 224], the Apex Court had considered the case of certain imports cleared at the Paradip Port in the State of Orissa. The goods were transported to Howrah in the State of West Bengal from where they were seized by the Customs authorities in West Bengal on the ground that they have been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. The matter was adjudicated by an adjudicating authority in West Bengal who held that the goods were ....