R. Jayaraman, Member (T)

1. All the above mentioned 4 appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara, bearing No.VIII/10-l/Cus/T/87-Addl. dated 22-12-1988. By the above order the Addl. Collector confiscated absolutely the goods imported by the appellants M/s. Dipen Enterprises and warehoused under the B/E.No. I-B 11/86-87; I-B 14/86-87 and I-B 13/86-87, all dated 5-8-86. The order also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants, M/s. Dipen Enterprises and Rs. 50,000/- each on the other 3 appellants.

2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below:

The appellants, M/s. Dipen Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as 'Dipen') imported at Ahmedabad Airport a consignment of Loaded Printed Circuit Boards (Hereinafter referred to as PCBs) under REP licence granted under para 138(13) of Import Policy AM 1983-84. These goods were sought to be warehoused by filing the warehousing Bs/E and the goods were brought and deposited at C.W.C. Vadodara. The import licence produced was debited with regard to this import and the goods were allowed to be removed to the bonded warehouse at Baroda. When the goods were in the Warehouse, it came to the notice of the department that identical number of V.CRs. of National Model NVG-10 in the form of disassembled condition have been imported at Kandla. These imports are alleged to have been at the instance of the appellants, M/s. Jolly Enterprises and the two partners viz. S/Shri Suresh and Nilesh. It was also noticed by the department that Dipen have no factory for the manufacture of electronic component or for making sub-assemblies nor they have in possession any registration certificate for the said manufacture. Since the import licence is with the actual user condition and the goods have been imported without any registration certificate justifying the utilisation of the imported PCBs in their factory and since it appeared that the loaded PCBs are only a part of the identical number of VCRs in dis-assembled condition imported at Kandla with cartons and technical manuals, the goods lying in the Warehouse at Vadodara were seized by the officers of the Vadodara Collectorate. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Vadodara, the aforesaid order has been passed, against which all the 4 appellants have come in appeal before us.

3. Shri A.K. Jain the learned advocate for the appellants, firstly challenged the jurisdiction of the Addl. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Baroda, who has passed the impugned order. He contended that the Addl. Collector has not been appointed as a Customs Officer or as Addl. Collector of Customs under Section 4 of the Customs Act. The imports have taken place through Ahmedabad Airport and hence no officer of Baroda Collectorate could adjudicate the matter pertaining to the importation through Ahmedabad airport. The order suffers also from the vice of review, since the goods have been cleared after examination and licence having been debited by the Ahmedabad Customs authorities without questioning the validity of the licence, such an order cannot be disturbed by resorting to adjudication proceedings but can only be done by review under Section 129-D of the Customs Act. In this context, he also referred to the various judicial pronouncements based on the Delhi High Court's decision reported in MANU/DE/0285/1980 : 1982 (10) ELT 43 (Del.) in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Union of India. He also took us through the Boards' order appointing Shri M.C.Kaul as Dy. Collector only and not as the Addl. Collector. He also took us through the notification issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act to emphasise that only Collector of Central Excise, Baroda and other Officers of Central Excise, Baroda viz. Dy. Collector and the Asstt. Collector posted under the Customs and Central Excise, Baroda are appointed as Customs