Case Law Details
Seville Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Section 1, sub section (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 admittedly is having jurisdiction in only within whole of India and its territories and cannot be extended beyond India and the appellant is located outside of India, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Customs Act, 1962, therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is located in Dubai, outside of India and having no office in India. He is supplying confectionary items to various importers of India. A case has been booked against one of the importer M/s Royal Import & Export on account of under valuation by DRI. A show cause notice was issued by DRI on 11.08.2014 to impose penalty on the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable on the appellant to impose penalty as Section 1 of sub-section (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 having the jurisdiction to whole of India not beyond the territories of India. Therefore, penalty under Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on the appellant. To support this contention, she relied on their own case with regard to some other importer which has been decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal reported in 2021 (3) TMI 775 CESTAT-NEW DELHI.
4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. is relying on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Prerna Singh, CO of the appellant company reported in 2020(1)-TMI-905-CESTAT-MUMBAI.
5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
6. During the course of arguments, it was inquired from the ld. A.R. about the decision of the Larger Bench on this issue by this Tribunal passed in 2021. The ld. A.R. fairly accepted that he is not aware of the decision. It is very unfortunate that the departmental officers appearing before this Court are not updated with the latest judgments of this Tribunal. As there is a decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal which is against the Revenue, but the ld. A.R. said that he will rely on the decision of the Single Member Bench of this Tribunal, which is in their favour, but he will not rely on the decision of the Division Bench which is having higher value in the eyes of law. The said act of the ld. A.R. cannot be appreciated at all being an officer of the court. It is expected from the officer of the court to assist the court.
7. In view of this, I hold that as Section 1, sub section (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 admittedly is having jurisdiction in only within whole of India and its territories and cannot be extended beyond India and the appellant is located outside of India, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Customs Act, 1962, therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside.
8. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
