B. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The following questions arise for determination in this application for reference under Sec. 130 of the Customs Act: Whether by virtue of the Notification No. 250 -Cus. and Notification No. 251 -Cus. - both dated 27th August 1983, concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred upon both the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal and the Collector of Customs, Calcutta or exercising power over the area mentioned in Item No. 2A under Column 1 of Notification No. 251?
(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present application may be summed up thus: (a) Acting on information that some containers lying unclear in the docks were imported in the name of fictitious firms, the Officers of Dock Intelligence Unit (DIU) detained on 7th June, 1995 four containers landed Ex. M. V. Dhaulgiri and Ex. M. V. Tiger River. Those four containers were landed at Calcutta dock on 16th November, 1994 and 1st December, 1994 respectively and were subsequently shifted to CFS Balmer Lawrie on 28th February, 1995. (b) Cargo -manifest for the said containers revealed the description of the goods as "Woollen Rags (Completely in premutilated condition) fumigated". (c) Examination of the goods in those containers in the presence of representative of C.H.A. Steamer Agent, CFS Agent and two independent witnesses revealed that those were 'complete' assorted garments of cotton, synthetic and very few of woollen. Some of the goods in these containers were found to be new garments. (d) Since neither Shri Tansukh Shah, the holder of the Power of Attorney of Messers Shine Woollen Mills nor the principal, who held themselves out as claimants could produce any documents in support of legal possession of those garments, those along with the containers were seized under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act. (e) Ultimately, a show -cause notice was issued and on adjudication, by order dated 19th February, 1996, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) confiscated the bales of garments under Sec. 111(d) as also under Sec. 111(m) for misdeclaration in the relevant Bills of Entry. The containers were, however, released being not liable to confiscation. (f) The adjudicating Commissioner kept the question of imposition of penalty in abeyance since the other two notices had not responded to the show -cause notice and did not appear for personal hearing. (g) Subsequently, by another order dated 24th May, 1996 the Commissioner imposed penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/ - each on the two respondents.
(3.) Being dissatisfied, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata and by the order dated November 12, 1997 the Tribunal set aside the order of imposition of penalty and confiscation on a question of jurisdiction.;