TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional freight. One package out of the said 140 Pkgs. was opened and examined by the Custom Officers and was found to contain Sub-assemblies (Electronic populated Ltd. circuit Brands) of a Stereo Radio Cassette recorder and the remaining 139 Pkgs. had not been opened in view of the oral admission by the appellants that they also contain the same items. The packages were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also discovered that the appellants had cleared another consignment from Bombay vide Bill of Lading No. F. 3/31-8-1983 containing besides other components of Radio Cassette Recorders prepared cabinets of make National Model RX-4960F duly affixed wtth metalic plates bearing markings Dyanora . The revenue authorities were of the view that Dyanora was written to avoid detection of the real make and model and consequential clearance of the goods against an invalid Import Licence. On 14-2-1984 the officers of the Special Investigation Branch, Custom Collectorate, New Delhi searched the godown premises of the appellants situated at A-62, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-l, New Delhi in the presence of two independent witnesses. Carton Nos. A 182 and A 662, selected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Price/completely assembled set Rs. 800/- F.O.B. (ii) (-) 40% discount (20% to arrive at wholesale price, 10% Qty. Discount 10% for Import in SKD condition Rs. 320/- (iii) Price per such set in SKD condition Rs.480/-F.O.B. According to the prices calculated in the manner detailed above the total assessable value of Delhi Custom House Bill of Entry and Bombay Custom House Bill of Lading worked out to Rs. 10,77,737/- against declared value of Rs. 3,57,056/-. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants and in their reply to the Show Cause Notice the appellants had challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi Custom House for the issue of Show Cause Notice in respect of a consignment cleared from Bombay and had denied the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. The learned Collector of Customs had confiscated the goods cleared at Bombay contained in 868 packages and the goods contained in 140 packages cleared from CWC, Delhi under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He, however, permitted M/s. Singh Radio and Electronic Industries to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- in lieu of conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty and alternatively he has pleaded for the reduction in fine and penalty. 3. Shri S. Krishnamurthy, the learned S.D.R. who has appeared on behalf of the respondents has argued that the goods declared and goods imported were different. He has also argued that there was under-valuation. He fairly conceded that in the Show Cause Notice there was no charge of fraud or collusion. He has further argued that Takara Electronics order may be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. On the issue of jurisdiction he argued that Delhi Customs had jurisdiction. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute that 868 cartons were cleared by Bombay Custom House vide Bill of Lading No. F.3/31-8-1983 (Import Department Sl.No. 303 of 10th November, 1983). Shri M. Ganeshan, the learned advocate had challenged the impugned order on the issue of jurisdiction. In the Customs Act, the jurisdiction is territorial-cum-functional jurisdiction. That is to say, jurisdiction is vested in the authorities appointed under Section 4 for the territories notified therein. The goods were imported at Bombay Port and were allowed clearance under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not complied with. It is, of course, true that the use or utilisation of the imported materials in the present case was not in the Madras Collector s jurisdiction. If the Cochin Collector had reason to believe that the conditions laid down in the notification had been violated necessitating proceedings against the appellants which could have led to demand of duty, penalty, etc., the proper course would have been for him to report the matter to the Collector of Customs, Madras to enable the latter to proceed against the appellants in accordance with law. The Cochin Collector, however, seems to have assumed jurisdiction to deal with the matter himself. The analogy with Central Excise Rule 196 as sought to be drawn by Shri Naik is inapplicable. The rule itself provides for demand of duty by the proper officer having jurisdiction over the applicant-user who may have got his requirement of materials cleared duty-free or at concessional duty in terms of Rule 192 from a manufacturer situated in another officer s jurisdiction. Such is not the case here. The two decisions cited in this context are of no help to the Revenue. Shri Naik has sought to justify the demand on the plea that what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collectorate but seized by an officer of another Collectorate, then the seizure and adjudication by authorities of latter Collectorate are without jurisdiction. In the matter before us, the position is similar. Relying on the earlier judgments of the Tribunal we hold that Collector of Customs, New Delhi had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 110 and to adjudicate. The Collector of Customs, New Delhi should have reported the matter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay or any other authority having all India jurisdiction. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi in this regard. 5. Now we deal with the issue of valuation. The Collector of Customs had adopted the total assessable value of Delhi Custom House Bill of Entry and Bombay Custom House Bill of Lading at Rs. 10,77,737/- against the declared value of Rs. 3,57,056/-. In para No. 4 we have held that the order passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi in respect of the goods cleared at Bombay is without jurisdiction and as such we have to look into the valuation aspect of the goods imported at Delhi. The appellants had declared the value in respect of 140 packages containing su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
