TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od for issuance of the show cause notice in the matter of seizure up to 17/1/2019 in respect of the Appellant, (M/s Vikas Ecotech Ltd.) on the ground that investigation conducted so far showed the indicated web of existence of complex scheme of exporting cheap export product at inflated price and claiming ineligible export benefits, which are to be subsequently utilised for duty free import by the Appellant. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the Appellant has attempted to export the consignment of Styrene Butadyne O Polymers, Chloride Poly Ethylene, Venial, Acetate O Polymers, Octail (DOA) and Octail Tri-Methaliate, vide three shipping Bills viz. S/B No. 2159486 dated 21/1/2018, 2159439 dated 12/1/2018 and 2212825 dated 15/1/2018. But ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere provisionally released to the importer by the Investigating Agency on 30/1/2019. No Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant within six months of seizure of the imported goods. Under the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act, when any good is seized by the Custom. and a show cause notice is required for the confiscation of same, under Section 124 of the Customs Act, within 6 months from the date of seizure. When the show Cause Notices is not issued within that period the goods seized is liable to be released unconditionally, unless and until the Commissioner extend the time period for further six months under the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act. In this case the investigating Agency, that is DRI, approached to the Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of LG. Rao, Assistance Collector of Customs vs. Vibhuti 989(3) SCC 202 where it has been held that the sufficient cause need to be shown "in proviso to Section 110 of the Act indicated that the Collector must apply his mind while extending the time period of six months. * That in the instant case the seizure has been effected 17/1/2018 on the ground that the test report which was received by the department regarding the number of the goods exported is pending, as the testing of the imported goods have already completed and the Department accepted these facts by releasing the seized goods provisionally, nothing remained to be investigated. 3.1 The appellant was not made available the test result which is the cause for extension of the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter considering the report from DRI regarding further investigation the case. It was also mentioned that in this case the seizure was effected at Nhava Sheva, and accordingly the order has been passed by the Commissioner Customs Nhava Sheva, who is the jurisdictional officer under Section. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of Zonal Bench and the Principal Bench is not competent to entertain this appeal for want of jurisdiction. He relied upon the Public Notice 2/2005 dated 5/8/2005 issued by this Tribunal. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the case records. 6. It is the fact that in this case a seizure of the imported goods has been affected vide seizure Memo No. DRI/HQ/C-I/50D/INT, 2018 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e state of Maharashtra. The appellant contention that the importer is Delhi based and the searches have been conducted in their offices at Delhi by DRI is of no consequence, as it is only follow up searches after the goods were seized at Nhava Sheva. No seizure has been affected within New Delhi, giving cause to appeal before Delhi Bench of Tribunal. The show Cause notice has been issued for the extension of time for issuing of the show cause notices in respect of goods seized at Nhava Sheva Mumbai, and therefore, it will be the jurisdiction of Mumbai Bench to deal with the appeal filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner in the instant case. 8. As far as the issue of SCN for extension of time by the DRI (HQ) Delhi is considered, ....