DIPEN ENTERPRISES Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(3.) SHRI Mondal, on the other hand, contended that SHRI. M.C. Kaul, though appointed initially as Dy. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, has been redesig-nated as Addl. Collector under Board's General order F.No. A.11013-219/80-84 dated 28-2-1981. As per the allotment of work by the Collector, he is required to adjudicate the Customs adjudication cases within the powers of the Addl. Collector. As regards the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Customs Act, he contended that since the Collector includes Addl. Collector, as per the definition of the Customs Act, once the Collector of Central Excise Baroda having been notified as Collector of Customs under Section 4 of the Customs Act, there is no need to specify Addl. Collector in the said Notifica-tion.On the question of imports through Ahmedabad Airport, SHRI Mondal contended that although the goods were imported through Ahmedabad airport, they have not been cleared for home consumption by officers of the Ahmedabad Customs Collectorate. These goods were entered for warehousing and not for home consumption and the goods were removed under bond to the Warehouse at Baroda. He referred to the order of distribution of work and pointed out that the Customs warehousing functions fall within the purview of Baroda Customs and Central Excise Collectorate and hence the Addl. Collector posted at Baroda is competent to adjudicate the case with regard to the infractions in respect of the goods warehoused in Baroda. On the question whether the order suffers from vice of review, SHRI Mondal contended that all the decisions cited by the other side relate to goods cleared for home consumption under an order passed by the competent officer under Section 47 of the Customs Act, whereas in this case, the goods are yet to be cleared for home consumption and they are lying in the Warehouse. No order permitting clearance for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act can be said to have been passed in this case. Hence the ratio of the citations would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.