S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T)

1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 14-8-1986.

2. The matter was heard at length on 30-1-1987 and 4-2-1987.

3. On these dates we heard the submissions of the parties on the question of jurisdiction.

4. Both the sides submitted their respective versions of the case but the submissions were mainly confined to the question as to whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Calcutta Customs had the jurisdiction to take action under the law.

5. Both the sides also submitted their written briefs and referred to the action of Paradip Customs as well as Calcutta Customs and cited various provisions of relevant Acts and case laws in support of their respective contentions.

The learned Counsels for the appellant submitted that Mrs. Ramnarain Biswanath, as Letter of Authority holder, imported 1514.790 metric tonnes of Second Grade G.P. Sheets/Coils amounting to Rs. 26,79,475.25 p. These goods were shipped from Japan on 31st January, 1985. The Appellant paid the full C. & F. value of the goods as also the insurance premium on 11-3-1985 and 18-2-1985 respectively.

6. The goods arrived at Paradip Port during middle of March 1985 and the Appellant filed Bill of Entry for Home Consumption on 14-3-1985. The proper officer Under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, namely the Appraiser, Paradip Customs, physically examined the goods and checked the declaration and assessed the duty payable in respect of the said goods. The assessment of duty was countersigned by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Paradip. The Appellant thereafter paid the entire Customs duty as assessed by Paradip Customs amounting to Rs. 50,13,034.21 p. on 21-3-1985. The Appellant also paid port charges of Paradip Port Trust amounting to Rs. 91,620/- and Rs. 18,920/- for clearance of the goods.

7. Upon payment of the assessed Customs duty and the Port charges on or about 21-3-1985 the said goods were cleared for Home Consumption Under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant thereafter brought the said goods by Railways to Shalimar Howrah. The goods arrived at Shalimar on 11-4-1985 and your Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 2,95,836/- towards freight and Octroi duty of Rs. 17,450/- for clearing the said goods from Railways.

8. Thereafter on 11th April, 1985, when the Appellant wanted to take delivery of the goods against production of Railway receipts, the Railway authorities, Shalimar refused to give delivery of the goods, and on the following day, they informed the Appellant that the Calcutta Customs had issued instructions on them for stoppage of delivery of the goods to the Appellant. Subsequently it was contended on behalf of the Calcutta Customs that they had seized the said goods in exercise of powers Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The validity of such seizure is under challenge.

9. Subsequently on or about 7-10-1985 Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, issued a purported show cause notice Under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the said goods are liable to confiscation Under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, and asked the Appellant to show cause before the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta, thereafter held the adjudication proceedings and passed an order against which this appeal is preferred before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was contended on behalf of the Appellant, on the threshold, that the Calcutta Customs had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice Under Section 124 of the Customs Act or pass any adjudication order against the clearance made by the Paradip Customs as per the procedure provided under the Customs Act, 1962 by the Appellant on the question of jurisdiction are as follows :