The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Customs Authority to impose penalties and confiscate goods under the Customs Act, 1962, for improper import and export activities committed within the territorial limits of India.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava learned Advocate for the appellants, Sri Amit Mahajan and Sri Gaurav Mahajan learned counsels for the respondent Revenue.

2. Out of the abovenoted five connected appeals, Custom Appeal No. 1 of 2022, Custom Appeal No. 2 of 2022 and Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2022 filed by M/s Deepu Jewellers Llc Dubai, Kishore Ratilal Dhakan and M/s Samrah Gold Factory Limited; respectively, are arising out of the order dated 29.8.2019 passed in three defective Custom Appeals filed by the aforesaid appellants, by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, whereby the appeals have been dismissed as non-maintainable being defective. The defect in three appeals was with respect to the mandatory pre-deposit in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The order impugned records that despite adjournment granted on the request of the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants therein, nothing had been deposited towards the mandatory pre-deposit.

The remaining two connected Custom Appeal No. 4 of 2022 and Custom Appeal No. 5 of 2022 filed by M/s Samrah Gold Factory Limited and M/s Deepu Jewellers Ltd; respectively, are directed against the order dated 31.1.2022 passed in Customs Appeal No. 70243 of 2021 (M/s Ajit Exports vs. Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, NOIDA) by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, whereby the show cause notices issued to the appellants therein namely M/s Ajit Exports and Sri Ajit Singh had been held to be without jurisdiction and the demand of duty and consequential confiscation of goods under the order dated 18.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Greator NOIDA had been set aside. Consequently, the return of confiscated gold jewellery was directed to be made in favour of the appellants therein namely M/s Ajit Exports and Sri Ajit Singh.

3. The challenge to the order dated 31.1.2022 is confined to the plea on the ground that out of the total confiscated gold which was directed to be released in favour of M/s Ajit Exports, the gold measuring 24,746.000 gms belonged to M/s Deepu Jewellers and 41315.020 gms belonged to Samrah Gold Factory Limited. The Tribunal (CESTAT) has, thus, erred in releasing the entire gold of 66061.020 gms in favour of M/s Ajit Exports.

Prayer has been made in the aforesaid two appeals to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 31.1.2022 to the extent of release of confiscated gold in favour of M/s Ajit Exports and release the same in favour of the appellants herein.

4. Before proceeding further, certain relevant facts of the case are required to be noted here for better appreciation of the arguments put forth by the counsels for the parties.

5. The admitted facts of the matter are that two appellant-companies namely M/s Samrah Gold Factory Limited, Sharjah and M/s Deepu Jewellers, Dubai are limited liability companies registered under the laws of United Arab Emirates with the share holding of 51% by a UAE National Abdullah Ramdan Moosa Keshwani and the remaining 49% shares of the companies held by Indian Partners namely Dhakan Kishore Ratilal (25% shares) and Deepak Ratilal Dhakan (24% shares). Both the companies were manufacturers and exporters of jewellery made of gold and the Director of both the companies was Kishore Ratilal Dhakan son of Sri Ratilal Dhakan, an Indian National.

6. The above noted two companies were doing business with M/s Ajit Exports and M/s Vee Ess Jewellers Private Limited who were two Indian companies working in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), NOIDA and the jewellery items made of gold were sent to M/s Ajit Exports and M/s Vss Jewellers for refurbishing, repair, remaking and finishing and after the said exercise, these companies were required to send the jewellery items back to the appellants namely M/s Deepu Jewellers and M/s Samrah Gold Factory Limited, by following the procedure prescribed in law. It is an admitted fact of