Officer having jurisdiction in respect of seizure of goods had jurisdiction to proceed against all persons involved u/s 112 (b).

In respect of seizure of 900 gold bars at Kerala by the Special Customs Preventive Unit, Calicut, a case was initiated under the Customs Act by the Central Excise Collectorate, by the issuance of a show cause notice dated 11-8-1989. Ultimately, the said proceedings ended in the levy of a penalty of Rs. 25, 00, 000/- on the petitioner. It is stated that the appeal against the said levy of penalty is pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that simultaneously action is being taken by the second respondent for the seizure of gold bars which were transported to Coimbatore by one P.B. Nawaz Khan. While taking action against the said P.B. Nawaz Khan and his associates, a show-cause notice was also issued to the petitioner asking him to show-cause why penalty should not be levied on him with respect to 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 inrespectoftheactioninitiatedagainstthesaidNawazKhanandhis 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 contended that even the show-cause notice does not indicate that the petitioner had played any part in the seizure of the gold at Coimbatore or the smuggling of the same into Coimbatore.

2.The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable because against the impugned order there is a statutory appeal provided to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. On merits, it is contended that the petitioner is involved in the smuggling of 650 gold bars into Coimbatore and the proceedings initiated by the second respondent is totally independent of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent. In respect of seizure of 650 gold bars at Coimbatore the investigation revealed that the petitioner was also involved in the smuggling and the alleged acts of commission on the part of the petitioner was distinct and different from those for which a penalty was levied by the first respondent. In particular, it is contended that the action against the petitioner is under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act and Section 74 of the Gold Control Act whereas the action of the first respondent was initiated under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The role of the petitioner in so far as the smuggling of 650 gold bars seized at Coimbatore on 1-3-1989 is clearly distinct from the earlier offence. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order is perfectly valid and within the jurisdiction of the second respondent.

3.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is good to remember the provisions of law under which action is purported to have been taken. For this purpose, one has to refer to Section 112(a) and (b). It is as follows :

"112.Penalty for improper importation of goods etc. Any person - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Sect