Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the location of the adjudicating authority and the cause of action.

Headnote:
Customs Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - 2000 (123) ELT 471, 2006 (194) ELT 264
Fact of the Case:

The appellant imported used computer monitors under the belief that they fell under the definition of capital goods and were permitted for import freely. Customs authorities appraised the value of the goods at a higher rate and imposed fines and penalties. The appellant appealed the decision, leading to a jurisdictional dispute.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that despite the decision by the South Zonal Bench, the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction due to the adjudicating authority and cause of action being in Hyderabad, not Bangalore.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in considering the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents such as 2000 (123) ELT 471 and 2006 (194) ELT 264 to establish that the High Court's jurisdiction is determined by the location of the adjudicating authority and the cause of action.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected as not maintainable in the High Court, with liberty reserved to the assessee to move the Andhra.

( 1 ) ASSESSEE is before us in this appeal challenging the order dtd 20-6-2005 passed by the cestat, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are as under; appellant imported 2160 pieces of used computer monitors from WRC International, USA at a price of US $ 4 per piece through Inland Container Depot, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad-18 and filed bill of entry declaring a total value of import as Rs. 5,04,569/- at Rs. 233. 60 per monitor supported by invoice No. 100901-1 dtd 8-11-2001 of the aforesaid suppliers of goods. The appellant imported the said monitors under the bonafide belief that the second hand computer monitors falls under the definition of capital goods and further are permitted for import freely if they are less than 10 years old, as per the import policy and therefore there was no need for an import licence. However the customs authorities took the view that as per EXIM policy 1997-2002, the second hand goods imported are consumer goods and are restricted items requiring licence for imports. The goods were examined on first appraisement basis and the value of the goods was apprised at Rs. 600/- per monitor and the goods were not released. Since the appellant had to clear the consignment immediately for fulfilling the contractual obligation undertaken and to avoid additional expenses, it requested for adjudication of the matter without issue of show cause notice and to decide the matter by granting personal hearing. Personal hearing was granted on 5-2-2002. The assessee submitted that in the event the goods were to be treated as consumer goods by the department being restricted items requiring a licence under the exim policy, a lenient view was prayed to be taken for imposing any fine or penalty in the matter. On 19-3-2002, the Commissioner passed an order imposing redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- without stating anything on the value of imported goods which was apprised at Rs. 600 per monitor. Since the goods were urgently required, the assessee cleared the goods by paying in cash under protest redemption fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1, 50,000/ -. The appellant was asked to pay duty on the enhanced value of monitors at Rs. 600/- per piece. The assessee paid the countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 2,38,464/- out of total amount of duty of Rs. 5,02,019/- in cash. The assessee was allowed to pay the remaining amount by availing the duty entitlement pass book and by availing exemption of Special

additional duty amounting to Rs. 69, 155/ -. Aggrieved by the said order assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal has now chosen to reject the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before us.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued and respondents entered appearance.

( 4 ) AT the time of admission, respondent contended that the appeal is to be filed at Hyderabad and not at Bangalore on the ground that the appellant is situated in Hyderabad and it comes within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, and that just because the South zonal Bench has decided the matter, assessee cannot file this appeal in this court. He would strongly rely on 2006 (194) ELT 264 a judgment of the Delhi High Court.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee would say that this court is not helpless in considering the case of the assessee. According to him, the matter has been decided by a bench having its Head Quarters at Bangalore and he would therefore say that this court can decide the appeal.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing, we have carefully perused the material on record.

( 7 ) APPELLANT is situated in Andhra Pradesh. Original Order was passed by the Commissioner of customs, Hyderabad. An appeal was filed to the South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The said bench dismissed the appeal. Let us see as to whether dismissal of the appeal by the South Zonal Bench gives a right to the appellant to maintain an appeal in the case on hand.

( 8 ) CUSTOMS Act provides f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document