Page 220 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

610 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (J)
PRERNA SINGH
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT-II), MUMBAI
Final Order Nos. A/85065-85066/2020-WZB, dated 22-1-2020 in Appeal Nos.
C/89693 & 89695/2018
Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Penalty, imposition of - Appellants sub-
jected themselves to the jurisdiction of Customs Act, 1962 upon notice sent to
them under Section 108 ibid which would have otherwise ensured through
extradition process - Appellant also confessed in her statement as CEO of her
company that appellant Seville Products Ltd. resorting to large scale under-
invoicing and consequently by misdeclaring transaction value as well as Retail
Sales Price (RSP) evaded duty during importation of goods - Such wrongdoing
having had its effect in the Mumbai Customs jurisdiction and appellants hav-
ing aided the importer in such wrongdoing, penalty under Section 112 ibid
rightly invoked - Further appellant Prerna never rescinded from her statement
and in view of Section 56 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 such admission needs
no further proof to hold appellants guilty of violation of Section 112(a) of Cus-
toms Act, 1962. [para 10]
Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction - In case of penal statute, viola-
tion of provision of statute if committed within the territorial limit of the said
country, then the same violation to be dealt by the State itself and the violator
to be penalised irrespective of his/her nationality or place of residence - There-
fore, when an offence’s adverse effect endangers a State’s security or Govern-
ment’s function, extra territorial jurisdiction is enforced. [paras 7, 8]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Indus. —
1990 (48) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Referred .......................................................................................... [Para 3]
C.K. Kunhammed v. Collector — 1992 (62) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal) — Referred ................................ [Para 9]
Hi Lingos Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (72) E.L.T. 392 (Tribunal) — Distinguished .............. [Paras 3, 9]
Hi Lingos Ltd. v. Collector — 1997 (95) E.L.T. A147 (S.C.) — Distinguished ............................... [Para 9]
Narendra Lodaya v. Commissioner — 2017 (348) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) — Dissented ........... [Paras 3, 9]
Shafeek P.K. v. Commissioner — 2015 (325) E.L.T. 199 (Tribunal) — Dissented ..................... [Paras 3, 8]
Shakti Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (368) E.L.T. A343 (Tribunal) — Referred ..... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Akhilesh Kangsia, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Commissioner,
Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act
on appellants M/s. Sevile Product and Ms. Prerna Singh, CEO, both based in
Dubai, by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai is assailed in
both the appeals.
2. Facts of the appellants’ case, in a nutshell, is that DRI Mumbai Zonal
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  220