Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 178 - AT - CustomsSeizure of gold jewellery - allegation smuggling from from SEEPZ SEZ area to Domestic tariff area (DTA) - proceedings were commenced and concluded without issue of a show-cause notice as prescribed in section 124 of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- Even if the goods are subject to duty, section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable owing to the definition of import ; the charging section is section 26 of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 which is outside the scope of invoking by the original authority. Colloquial comprehension or usage of export or import in relation to movement of goods to and from zones cannot substitute for the statutory definitions. Recourse to penal provisions without clear understanding of legalities is the surest mode of reverting to arbitrariness and lawlessness that preceded the dawn of civilization. The activities of the units in the zones are also subject to review of annual performance by the legally constituted Approval Committee. It would be well-nigh impossible for the units to remove finished products or inputs without detection at the time of such annual review. And shortage or failure to account for inputs is visited by recovery of duty and other penal action in accordance with the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. There are adequate safeguards in that Act without the need to indulge in misadventure under the Customs Act, 1962 that does not extend to special economic zones. There are also provisions for action in the event of illicit removal by units. The notice issued by the Development Commissioner of SEEPZ Special Economic Zone is testimony to it; proceedings thereon will suffice to safeguard the economic integrity of the nation. The proceedings against the appellants are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the confiscation and penalties are set aside. Appeal is allowed. - Decided in favor of appellant.
|