AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rport, Mumbai confiscating 11 pieces of diamond studded gold jewellery valued at Rs. 4,99,257/- under Section 111(j) and (o) of Customs Act,1962, with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- on importer, M/s Charisma Jewellery Pvt Ltd. Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Abhishek Pareek and Rs. 25,000/- on Ms Sheelu Mathai under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The proceedings were initiated consequent upon recovery of the gold pieces from Shri Abhishek Pareek who was found to be carrying them without valid documents while exiting from SEEPZ-Special Economic Zone, Andheri. The said person has had a daily entry pass for M/s Charisma Jewellery a unit with SEEPZ SEZ and a permanent en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endered herself liable to penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." 4. The impugned order upheld the adjudication order and hence these appeals. 5. The grounds of appeals are that the gold jewellery belonged to the Domestic Tariff Area unit which had been entrusted to Shri Abhishek Pareek for marketing and which, he, in breach of procedure governing Special Economic Zones took into the SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, that evidence of ownership by M/s Starlet Jewel Pvt Ltd. had been presented to the adjudicating authority who chose to disregard the same, that documents related to manufacture by the special economic zone unit, M/s Charisma Jewellery Pvt Ltd. had been furnished as evidence that the seized goods had no connecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es did not even consider these submissions and have proceeded on the presumption that these were removed from the special economic zone unit. If the claims of the appellants are indeed true, and no efforts made to ascertain the truth thereof, proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 are contrary to law; the seized goods would be a manufactured product and hence beyond the scope of application of customs laws and the raw material would have been licitly cleared on payment of duty. By neglecting to verify the claims supported by documentation, the lower authorities have failed to perform a fundamental task implicit in the adjudication process. That, by itself, vitiates the proceedings. 9. There are situations that do allow the exercise of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." With this, it is unambiguously clear that a proceeding under the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to a unit or developer in a Special Economic Zone will fail owing to lack of jurisdiction. More so, when section 53 states 53 (1) A Special Economic Zone shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to be territory outside the customs territory of India for the purposes of undertaking the authorized operations. Authorized operations under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 are the activities permitted to a Developer by the Board of Approvals or those permitted to units b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entation of the Act function under the Development Commissioner and the original authority, not being so, is not empowered to initiate proceedings under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. 12. Notwithstanding the above conclusions on the jurisdictional competence of the original authority, it is also seen that the proceedings have invoked section 111 and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Jurisdiction is not merely territorial but also has to be in the context of the scope of the statute which is sought to be invoked. section 111 and 112 can, undoubtedly, be invoked where laws other than Customs Act, 1962 have been contravened but only in relation to imports. The definition of import under section 2(23) the Customs Act, 1962 is restrict....