TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g imposition of penalty on the exporter, partnership firm and its partners and others. 2. The Commissioner's finding is reproduced herein below :- "In terms of - (i) Sec. 4 of Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of Customs. (ii) Vide Notification 15/2002-Cus. (N.T), dated 7-3-2002 the areas of jurisdiction of Commissioner, Addl. or Joint Commissioners and Dy. or Asst. Commissioners of Customs are notified. The territorial jurisdiction in respect of Commissioners (Export - Seaport) is mentioned at S.No.7 under column 2. (iii) Sec 50 of the Customs Act'62 - (1) The exporter of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer in the case of goods to be exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and in the case of goods to be exported by land, a bill of export in the prescribed form. (2) The exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. (iv) Sec 51 of Customs Act, 1962, where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export are not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....angalore reached its finality once given by them, is neither tenable not enforceable, as the jurisdiction to give "allowed for shipment" order i.e., loading of goods lies with the Chennai Customs, Chennai being the gateway port. Further, circular No. 6/2002-Cus., dated 23-1-2002 allows examination of export containers sealed at ICD's of when there is specific intelligence. Moreover, as per Section 2(18) of CA, 1962 'export', with its grammatical variation and cognate expressions means taking out of India to a place outside India. Accordingly, the act of export and clearance thereon complete only when the same is passed for shipment or allowed to be coaled into vessel taking out of India. Section 141 of CA, 1962 provides control over all conveyance and goods in Customs area for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act. Vide Notification No. 52/2006-Cus., (N.T.), Chennai Seaport has been designated as Customs Area. Chennai Customs which is invested with power to stop and examine the permitted loading of export goods for the purpose of enforcing the provision of the Customs Act, 1962, has both territorial and functional jurisdiction over the functioning of Port of loadin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tract of the High Court's order is reproduced herein below :- "4......Coming to the confiscation, we may notice the observations of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. Boormull (AIR 1974 Supreme Court 859) in which it has been pointed out that a proceeding for confiscation is one in rem rather than one in personam, like e.g., penalty under Section 112 of the Act, one in relation to the goods rather than in relation to the person in any way concerned. Further, in Frankfurther v. W.L. Exner (1947 Ch. D. 629), it was said : "Confiscation is an act of appropriation of private property for State or Sovereign use and 'usually been the result of the doing by the owner of some prohibited act. The seizure and appropriation of property as a punishment for breach of the law whether municipal or international was held to be confiscation." There are other authorities also who have taken the view, however, like the Calcutta Court, that a confiscation proceeding shall not be controlled by a provision like one under Section 47 or Section 51 of the Act and that it would be incorrect to say that for initiating a confiscation proceeding, it would be necessary to find out whether the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Popular Dyechem [1987 (28) E.L.T. 63] and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43] supra, however, have not taken notice that the seizure and confiscation are acts in rem unlike any penal action under the Act itself being one in relation to the goods rather than in relation to the person and such proceedings, however, depend not on anything else, but the reasonable belief of the proper officer that the goods are liable to confiscation, whether for the reason of being improperly imported goods or for the reason of improper export. Such a belief may be found to be reasonable for the reasons of fraud or suppression, as noticed by the Delhi Court in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 43] supra, or such other reasons or such other grounds which render the import or the export illegal and liable to confiscation. It would be only in the notice under Section 124 of the Act that grounds would be disclosed and then only it would be possible to know whether there has been any fraud, suppression of fact and/or any other invalidity in the import or export, or not. 6. Both the Bombay Court judgm....