ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Non-Appeared for the appellants despite notice and adjournments granted ealier. Heard Shri U.B. Khalwadekar, learned D.R. The Revenue. This is a case which involves import of goods under DEEC Scheme and sale of the same is in the market in contravention of the conditions in the Exam Policy and relevant customs notification instead of using the same for export purposes. As such, on Merits, the appellants have no case and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) requires no interference.
2. The appellants have also challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner on the ground that the impugned goods were duly manifested and relevant bills of entires were assessee by the officers working with the Commissioner of Customs (Export) and hence the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) had no jurisdiction in the matter. We have carefully considered the issue of the jurisdiction raised by the appellants. We find that under the relevant Notification No. 32/97-Cus (N.T.) dated 16.7.1997 issued under Section 4 of the customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai has been given concurrent jurisdiction over Mumbai with the Commissioners of Customs, Mumbai, Sahar Airport, Sahar Air Cargo and J.N. Port and in addition jurisdiction over Thane and Raigad districts. As such, as far as the impugned goods are concerned it can not be denied that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai who has adjudicated the case has full jurisdiction. The notification issued under Section 4 does to also limite the power of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in any way. We also find that no limit on his power has ben placed under the statute as in the case of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under section 5 (3) of the customs Act, 1962. As such, we reject the contention in regard to alleged lack of jurisdiction of the adjudicating Commissioner by the appellants as frivolous and wholly unsubstantiated. Accordingly, we find no merit in these appeals either on merits or on the ground of jurisdiction and therefore, we reject the same.
3. Our order rejecting the appeals was pronounced on the date of hearing on 23.10.2003.