MADRAS ELECTRO CASTINGS (P) LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in these appeals filed by M/s. Madras Electro Castings (P) Ltd. and Others, arising out of a common order, is whether goods which were imported from abroad and were cleared by the Customs after assessment of Bills of entries can be seized by the Excise officers exercising power as Customs officer.

(2.) Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Ld. Consultant, submitted at the outset that the impugned goods were imported lawfully and two bills of entries were filed which were assessed and after the Customs has given "out of charge order", the goods were removed from the Port and taken to their factory premises; that once the goods have been legally imported and cleared by the Customs, the CCE, Madras exercising the power as Commissioner of Customs has no jurisdiction to seize the same and adjudicate the matter; that at the most, the matter should have been referred to the Commissioner of Customs for reviewing the order passed on the bill of entry. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ARS Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Madras in which the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 2819 and 2820/99/SBR/dated 11.11.1999 held that "the proper course was that the Proper officer was to have proceeded with the investigation on the matter and by issuing of show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act on allegation of mis -declaration, etc. But the proceedings had been taken over instead by the Collector of Central Excise without referring the matter to the Collector of Customs to whom the appellants had executed the bond". He also relied upon the decision in the case of M.S. Venketanarayana Iyer v. CCE, Madras 1999 (110) ELT 208 (SC) (decided on 17.9.1962) wherein the Supreme Court held that validity of an order made by a quasi judicial authority under a statute cannot be questioned by a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Finally, he referred to the decision in the case of Singh Radio Electronics v. Collector of Customs where in the Tribunal held that goods were cleared by Collector of Customs, Bombay and seized subsequently by Collector of Customs, New Delhi and the seizure was without jurisdiction. Similar views were expressed by the Tribunal in the case of CC, Mumbai v. Chandiram Leelaram .

(3.) Countering the arguments, Ld. DR Shri S. Sudarsan submitted that under Notification No. 58/92 -Cus. (NT) dated 31.7.1972, CCE, Madras has been declared to be Collector of Customs within its jurisdiction and as such, the CCE, Madras was competent to adjudicate the matter as Collector of Customs. He further submitted that the goods were cleared by the Customs after execution of a bond for furnishing the end use certificate and as the end use certificate is to be given by the Central Excise authorities, this fact also gives the jurisdiction to CCE, Madras in whose jurisdiction the factory premises of the appellants falls. The Ld. DR finally mentioned that as per the direction of the Bench, a report was also called for from the Commissioner who in the report dated 15.1.2001 has mentioned that the impugned goods were seized on the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act and CCE, Madras having the jurisdiction over the area where the goods were seized was competent to decide the matter.