TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dealings of the said Nawaz Khan. According to the petitioner, the sale and purchase of about 700 gold bars by the said Nawaz Khan was completed at Calicut on 24-2-1989 and beyond that the petitioner had no connection with the said Nawaz Khan or the transfer of the gold to Coimbatore. The petitioner pointed out that paragraph 62 of the show-cause notice itself clearly indicated that the seizure at Coimbatore was nothing but a follow-up action in respect of seizure at Calicut and therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable once over again. In other words, it was contended that there was no cause of action against the petitioner in respect of the action initiated against the said Nawaz Khan and his associates and therefore, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to levy penalty against the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 30-12-1991 a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner. The only argument of Mr. Abdul Karim, learned Senior Counsel is that the Customs Act does not authorise the second respondent to levy penalty in respect of self same goods especially when there is no cause of action in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 111 of the Customs Act. The question is only whether the petitioner is liable to be penalised under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and whether such penalty can be imposed by the second respondent. There are notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Act appointing officers as Collectors of Customs for specified territorial areas. In respect of the following areas, the notification says that the Collector of Customs, Cochin (Ist respondent) will have jurisdiction "the whole of the State of Kerala, the Union territory of Lakshdweep and the territory of Mahe of the Union territory of Pondicherry." Similarly, the second respondent namely, the Collector of Customs has jurisdiction over the following areas :- "The whole of - the State of Tamil Nadu, excluding (i) the areas under the(a) jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Madras, and (ii) the areas under the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madurai as defined in Rule (2) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the Union territory of Pondicherry (excluding the territory(b) of Mahe and the village of Yanam)". 4.With the above legal position let me now examine whether the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is concerned is as follows : "It is thus clear that K.P. Abdul Majeed (Petitioner) together with E. Prasad and E. Pramod removed 7 jackets of Gold from the house of E. Prasad at Chevarambalam to the car KLH 8181 of Nawaz Khan who transported them to Coimbatore. Shri Assu, s/o. Majeed assisted them in carrying and keeping the contraband Gold. Shri K. Abdullah was thus concerned in the smuggling of the Gold Bars under seizure." 6.The learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through paragraphs 4, 17, 40, 45, 64, 67 and 69 of the impugned order to impress upon me that the petitioner had some part to play in the transfer of the gold to Coimbatore. But a careful reading of the passages clearly shows that whatever part the said Petitioner had played in the appropriation of the subject gold from the main cargo of smuggled gold and sending them to Coimbatore, the Petitioner never left the Kerala territory or accompany the gold while being transported to Coimbatore. In other words he never did anything within the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent. In fact the second respondent says that it was apparent that the gold seized by the first and second respondents are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeking to quash the proceedings it was contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, had no jurisdiction. Observed the High Court : "A reading of the above would show that each and every act is part of a single transaction. It is not as if one can be disassociated from another. It is not as if, the act of one accused is a water tight compartment by itself, so as to segregate it from the act of the other accused. So, I am unable to accept the first submission made by Mr. Abdul Nazeer." It is no doubt true that an offence under Section 135(1)(b)(1) of the Act is different from penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act. 9.The above arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Abdul Karim were prima facie attractive. However, on deeper consideration I entertained doubts regarding acceptance of such an argument and therefore, posted the case for further hearing on 30-6-1995 and gave time to the petitioner's counsel to argue further on the tenability of his submissions. After hearing both sides on 7-7-1995 I am of the opinion that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. My reasons are as follows : Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Officer in the territorial jurisdiction where the person who smuggled the goods or sold the goods is residing. Further, in Section 122 of the Customs Act relating to adjudication of confiscations and levy of penalties, there is only a monetary limit fixed for each officer of Customs. There is no bar under Section 122 of the Customs Act to proceed against the person who is outside the territorial limits. In this connection, we have to remember that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent. It so happens that one of the persons involved in the transaction is outside the territorial jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot import notions of the Civil Procedure Code into the field of adjudication under the Act. Even under the Civil Procedure Code it is well known that whether the cause of action arose within one court, leave to sue can be obtained for proceeding against the person who are outside the territorial limit. In as much as there is no specific bar under the Customs Act, to proceed against the person outside the territorial limit, the plea of want of jurisdiction cannot be urged o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
