Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. & Connected Matters (Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022; 10/2022; 11/2022; 12/2022; 13/2022; 14/2022; 15/2022; WP(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 CUS.APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC, CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA., PIN - 682031 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** ASHWIN GOLD PVT. LTD, GROUND FLOOR, SD 16-4 BLOCK, SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, 'KAKKANAD, COCHIN, KERALA -682 037, PIN - 682037 BY ADV P.A. AUGUSTIAN THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).9058/2022, 10/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **-2-** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 9058 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - 1 ASHWIN GOLD PVT. LTD 11/422, SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 314, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SANJAY SUBRAO NIKAM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAO NIKAM, R/O. SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 314. - 2 SANJAY SUBRAO NIKAM, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. SUBRAO NIKAM, R/O. SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 314. BY ADVS. P.A.AUGUSTIAN; JOVIT LOBO ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - 1 COMMISSIONERATE OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN - 682031. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** - 2 THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, COCHIN, KERALA - 682 037. BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** **CUS.APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** T.R. SAJI, MUNDUPLAKKAL HOUSE, KUMBALAMPIOKA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689661 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 CUS.APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** K.O. ANTO, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KALLARACKAL JEWELLERS, VII/246,CENTRAL JUNCTION, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 670001 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** **CUS.APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** K VENUGOPALAN, ERUMAKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERY(SOUTH), TRICHUR,KERALA, PIN - 680006 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 CUS.APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA-682037, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** SANJAY SUBRAO NIKAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ASHWIN GOLD PVT LTD., R/O. 11 /422, SANJAY NIVAS, PALLITHAZHAM , MULAMTHURUTHY, KERALA, PIN - 682314 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** **CUS.APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** JEESON DAVIS, ERUMAKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERY(SOUTH), TRICHUR,KERALA, PIN - 680006 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [16 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** **CUS.APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2022** ## **APPELLANT/S:** COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) 5TH FLOOR, CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN, KERALA, PIN - 682037 BY SRI SREELAL N.WARRIER; SMT KRISHNA S, CGC ## **RESPONDENT/S:** M/S JOYALUKKAS INDIA PVT. LTD, DOOR NO. 40/2096, A&B PEEVES, TRITON MARINE DRIVE, SHANGUMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN KERALA, PIN - 682031 THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** ## **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 27835 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 ASHWIN GOLD PVT LTD, 11/422, SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O. ERNAKUAM- 682 314 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SANJAY SUBRAO NIKAM, AGED 38 YEARS, SLO -SUBRAON.IK-AM, R/O SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM- 682 314 - 2 SANJAY SUBRAONIKAM, AGED 38 YEARS, SLO SUBRAONIKAM, RLO SANJAY NIWAS, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKUAM- 682 31 BY ADVS. P.A.AUGUSTIAN, JOVIT LOBO ## **RESPONDENT/S:** Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** - 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, APPELLATE COMMITTEE CELL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AMP INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110 011 - 2 JOINT DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AMP INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011 - 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, COCHIN, KERALA-682 030 BY ADVS. SREELAL WARRIER, SC MANU S., DSG OF INDIA; KRISHNA S., CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) RESERVED ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.9/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## J U D G M E N T [Cus. Appeal No.9/2022, W.P.(C) 9058/2022, Cus. Appeal Nos.10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) No.27835/2021] ## S.V Bhatti, J. We have heard Mr Sreeral Warrier, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Customs Department, Ms Krishna, learned Central Government Counsel, and Mr P A Augustine for M/s.Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. (for short, AGPL). 2. By this common judgment, we are considering the legality and correctness of the order dated 17.02.2022 in Final Order No.20057-20065/2022 made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Bangalore; and Orders dated 27.03.2015, 07.09.2018 and 19.06.2020 made by the competent authorities under The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (for short, SEZ Act) and the prayer for a direction to the Revenue to implement the order of the CESTAT dated 17.02.2022 in Final Order No.2005720065/2022 insofar as the findings related to 4 Kgs of gold seized from the Airport. We refer to the parties as ‘Revenue’ for the orders made under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, Act 1962); ‘competent authority/SEZ’ for the orders made under SEZ Act and M/s. Ashwin Gold Pvt Ltd/AGPL as ‘importer’. 3. The circumstances preceding to initiation of the steps under Act 1962 or under SEZ Act are similar, therefore, are stated hereunder: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 3.1 AGPL/importer has established an export unit vide order dated 04.10.2011 read with 26.02.2012 in Special Economic Zone Cochin (CSEZ). The unit is established to make gold ornaments and jewellery for export from CSEZ. On 11.02.2013, the importer applied to the Specified Officer of Customs, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Kakkanad, Cochin, for taking out gold imported for job work in a Domestic Tariff Area (for short, DTA). On 14.03.2013, the Office of Development Commissioner of SEZ accorded permission to the importer to move or take out gold imported for job work in the specified DTA. The crucial conditions in the authorization to take out the gold from CSEZ read thus: i) permitted to remove 50 Kg of gold to M/s.Mahavishnu Industries, 547/A, First Floor, Perumpally P O, Mulanthuruthy, Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** (ii) the total quantity removed shall be brought back to the importer’s unit along with the waste generated, if any, during the course of the sub-contract within 120 days, and (iii) the permission is valid for one year from 14.02.2013. The permission stood expired by 13.02.2014, and the importer makes an effort to canvass that the importer has applied for permission or sought renewal and, therefore, any finding recorded on the movement of gold from CSEZ to any place within the DTA beyond 13.02.2014 is legal. The case of the importer alone is referred to at this stage, and at a later stage of our judgment, we will express our view on these averments of the importer. 4. The Officers of Revenue, acting on the input of the alleged clandestine movement of gold, on 11.08.2014, searched Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the unit of the importer in CSEZ. It is stated that the search and inspection of the unit in CSEZ are with the prior permission of the authorities under the SEZ Act. The search and seizure led to the issuance of a show cause notice dated 05.05.2015 to the importer, and also, the individuals who handled the imported gold moved out of the unit in CSEZ. The show cause notice, as is summarized in the Order-in-Original, would suffice the narrative in appreciating the jurisdictional issue involved in the Customs Appeals filed by the Revenue. We excerpt the following details from paragraph 67 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2016. “Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No. 02/2015 dated 05/05/2015, M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd., and Shri. Sanjay Subrao Nikam, Managing Director of the said unit were called upon to Show cause to the Commissioner of Customs, Customs Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Preventive Commissionerate. Cochin-11 as to why:- i. the 385512.5 grams of gold bars diverted from the premises of M/s. Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd., at Cochin Special Economic Zone by Shri. Sanjay Subrao Nikam, Managing Director of the firm, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (b), (d), (j), (k) and (o) read with Section 120 of the Customs Act, 1962. ii. 11095.90 gms. of gold ornaments seized from M/s Kallarackal Jewellers, Angamaly, being made of 10 Kgs. of gold bars of 995 purity, smuggled out from M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd: should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 11 (b), (j), (k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. iii. 6499.030 gms. of gold articles seized from M/s Smijo Gold. Trichur on 12-08-2014 being made of 6.5 Kg of gold smuggled out from M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd.. CSEZ on 08-08-2014, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), (k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. iv. 4346.890 gms. of gold articles seized from M/s. Southern Gold Pvt Ltd., Trichur on 12-08-2014 and made out of 4 Kgs of gold smuggled out from M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd.. CSEZ on 08.08.2014 should not be confiscated under the provisions of Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Section 111(b), (j), (k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. v. the 4581.581 gms. of gold articles seized from M/s Ajay & Co Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. vi. the 1075.317 gms. of gold articles seized from M/s. Leo’s Angel Gold, Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act. 1962 vii. the amount of Rs. 2.85 crores lying with M/s. Joyalukkas (I) Pvt Ltd., being the sales proceeds of 10 kgs. of smuggled gold purchased from Shri. Sanjay Subrao Nikam, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) read with Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. viii. the 4 kgs. of gold bars lying at the Air Cargo Complex Nedumbassery being imported into a non-existing unit and with the intention of diverting into the Domestic Tariff Area should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(d) and (o), of the Customs Act, 1962. ix. penalty should not be imposed on M/s. Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd., and its Managing Director Shri. Sanjay Subrao Nikam. under the provisions of Section 112 (a) and 114A of the Customs Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Act, 1962 and x. duties of Customs amounting to Rs. 30,86,721/- on the quantity of 11186.325 grams of imported gold bars diverted from their unit and not so far recovered, should not be demanded from them us 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest leviable thereon under Section 28 AA. 68. Shri. K.O. Anto, Prop. Kallarackal Jewellers, Angamaly was called upon to Show cause as to why- i. 11095.90 gms, of ornaments seized from M/s. Kallarackal Jewellers, Angamaly as made out of 10 Kgs. of gold bars of 995 purity smuggled out from M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd., CSEZ on different occasions, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(k) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. ii. penalty should not be imposed on him under the provisions of Section 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act. 1962. 69. M/s. Joyalukkas Pvt. Ltd., Thrissur and its Managing Director Shri Joy Alukkas were called upon to Show cause as to why: i- 10 Kgs. of gold bars of 995 purity supplied by M/s. Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd., CSEZ should not be confiscated under the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** provisions of Section 111(k), 111(o) and 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 ii. penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 70. S/Shri. Jeeson Davis. B. Jayakumar and T.R. Saji were called upon to Show cause as to why: Penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 71. Shri. K. Venugopalan, accountant. M/s. Kallarackal Jewellers, Angamaly was called upon to Show cause as to why:Penalty should not be imposed on him under the provisions of Section of the Customs Act, 1962. 72. M/s. Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd.. Trichur represented by its Director Shri C.A. Collins, were called upon to show cause as to why:- (i) the 4346.89 grams of gold seized from M/s. Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd., Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962; and (ii) penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 73. Shri. M.K. Babu, Prop. M/s. Smijo Gold. Trichur was called upon to Show cause as to why- i. the 6499.03 grams of gold seized from M/s. Smijo Gold. Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act. 1962 and ii. penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 74. M/s. Ajay & Co.. Trichur was called upon to Show cause as to why :- i. the 4581.581 grams of gold articles seized from M/s Ajay & Co Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act. 1962; ii. penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 75. M/s. Leo's Angel Gold, Trichur was called upon to Show cause as to why: i. the 1075.317 grams of gold articles seized from M/s. Leo's Angel Gold. Trichur should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(b), (j), ( k) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962: ii. penalty should not be imposed on them under the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 76. S/Shri. Ujval Jose, Joemon and Happy Kurien, partners M/s. Awesome Jewel Concepts. Thrissur were called upon to Show cause as to why: i. penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.” A common circumstance of relevance from the above-excerpted portion from the Order-in-Original can be noticed, _viz_ . that the gold seized is in the DTA and the statements recorded are of the persons from whom the gold imported was seized from the DTA. There is no dispute on the seizure, place of seizure and the presence of imported gold without suffering the customs duty or moved into DTA under the authorization of the competent authority. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 4.1 The importer and the other connected persons have replied to the show cause notice resulting in the Order-inOriginal No.01/2016-17 dated 30.05.2016. The summary of the Order-in-original reads as follows: ## “ORDER i. I order confiscation of the 11095.90 gms. of gold ornaments valued at Rs.3,00,03,313/- seized from M/s. Kallarakkal Jewellery. Angamaly, along with 4581.581 gms. and 1075.317 gms. of gold articles totally valued at Rs. 1,52,96,252/supplied by them for job work to M/s Ajay & Co. Trichur and to M/s Leo's Angel gold respectively under the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. I find that of the gold articles seized, provisional release had been availed only in respect of 11901.958 gms. valued at Rs. 3,21,82,894/-. No provisional release has been availed in respect of the balance quantity of 4850.84 gms. valued at Rs. 1,31,16,671/-. I therefore impose a redemption fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- on the 11901.958 gms. of gold taken on provisional release and extend an option to redeem the balance quantity on payment of a redemption Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** fine of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Kallarakkal Jewellery shall also be liable to pay appropriate duty and other charges including interest. Option for provisional release in respect of the balance quantity shall be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the terms as above, the Bank Guarantee executed shall stand adjusted there against. ii. I order confiscation of the 6499.030 gms. of gold articles valued at Rs. 1,75,73,377/- seized from M/s. Smijo Gold, Trichur under the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However I extend an option to redeem the said gold articles on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 6,50,000/(Rupees Six lakhs Fifty thousand only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appropriate duty, interest and other charges as applicable shall also be payable. The option of redemption shall be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. iii. I order confiscation of the 4346.89 gms. of gold articles valued at Rs.1,17,53,990/- seized from M/s. Southern Gold P. Ltd Trichur under the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. 1962. However, I extend an option to redeem the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** said gold articles on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Appropriate duty, interest and other charges as applicable shall also be payable. The option of redemption shall be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. iv. I hold the 10 Kgs of gold sold by Shri Sanjay Subrao Nikome M/s Joyalukkas (I) Pvt. Ltd. and subsequently disposed of by M/s. Joyalukkas (I) Pvt. Ltd. liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. As the gold is not available for confiscation and instead a bond dated 20/01/2015 for an amount of Rs. 2,84,50,000/- and a bank guarantee dated 04/02/2015 for amount Rs. 29,60,000/- had been executed by M/s. Joyalukkas authorising the Department to recover the sale proceeds of Rs.2.85 crores. I order confiscation of the sale proceeds of Rs.2.85 crores under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow an option for redemption of the sale proceeds on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Joyalukkas (I) Pvt. Ltd shall however be liable on such redemption to pay appropriate duty, interest and other Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** charges as applicable on the 10 kilograms of gold. The option to redeem the sum of Rs. 2.85 crores shall be exercised within 30 days of receipt of this order. In the event of failure to do so, the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 29,60,000/ shall stand discharged. v. 1 confirm the demand of duty amounting to Rs.30,86,721/ (Rupees Thirty lakhs Eighty six thousand Seven hundred and Twenty one only) on the 11186.325 grams of imported gold bars clandestinely removed from the unit of M/s. Ashwin Gold in CSEZ to DTA and not so far recovered, under section 28 (8) of the Customs Act, 1962 together with interest as applicable under Section 28 AA ibid. vi. I order confiscation of 4 Kgs. of gold bars imported by M/s Ashwin Gold and presently lying at the Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery under Section 111(d) and (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. vii. I impose a penalty equivalent to the duty amount of Rs.30,86,721/- together with interest as applicable till date of payment of such duty on Shri. Sanjay Subrao Nikam under the provisions of Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. This penalty shall relate only to the 11186.325 grams of gold improperly removed from SEZ to DTA but not recovered during Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** investigation. viii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on Shri Sanjay Subrao Nikam. Managing Director, M/s. Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd.. under the provisions of Section 112(a) The Customs Act, 1962. This penalty shall relate to the gold improperly removed from SEZ to DTA but since recovered and to the 1Kg gold under seizure at Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery which is confiscated vide (vi) above. ix. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) on Shri. K.O. Anto, Prop. Kallarakkal Jewellery, Angamaly under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. x. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on M/s. Joyalukkas under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. xi. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), on Shri. Jeeson Davis under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. xii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on Shri. B. Jayakumar under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. xiii. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** only) on Shri. T.R. Saji, under the provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 xiv. I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) on Shri. Venugopalan under the provisions of Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. xv. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One lakh only) on M/s. Southern Gold Pvt. Ltd. Trichur represented by its Director Shri. C.A. Collins under the provisions of Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. xvi. I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on Shri. M.K. Babu, Proprietor of M/s. Smijo Gold, Trichur under the provisions of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 xvii. I refrain from imposing any penalty on M/s. Ajay & Co. Trichur, M/s. Leo's Angel Gold, Trichur. Ujval Jose, Joemon, and Happy Kurien.” 4.2 Aggrieved by order of confiscation, levy of penalty etc., the importer and the other connected traders filed appeals before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, through the order dated Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** - 17.02.2022, allowed the appeals filed by the importers. Hence the appeals at the instance of the Revenue. 4.3 The Revenue raises the following substantial questions of law: - “a. Does not Section 21 and 22 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (SEZ Act) deal with investigations and actions in respect of offences committed in Special Economic Zones? - b. Is not a Special Economic Zone to be fictionally treated as a foreign territory for the purposes of Sections 111 & 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and for investigations into such violations? - c. Does the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, provide for a situation where no actions could be initiated for illegal transit of gold through SEZ during the period till the Rules thereto came into force? Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** - d. Is not the continuance of an existing jurisdiction/authority of any statutory agency to be considered favourably until and unless the exclusion if clearly and unambiguously spelt out in law? - e. Can not a decision rendered based on a wrongly assumed document be rendered illegal and liable to be set aside in an appeal under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Hon'ble High Court.” 5. The next facet of the narration arises under SEZ Act. On 19.08.2014, the Development Commissioner of SEZ issued a - show cause notice to the Managing Director of AGPL/Importer on the following statement of charges: “Whereas the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, vide letter No. 5-14/5/14-R81 Cus dated 11-8-2014 informed this office that M/s Ashwin Gold Private Limited is suspected to have been removing gold imported by them duty free and is taking out Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the items without Completing the required formalities and without payment of appropriate amount of Custom duty and accordingly requested permission to visit the premises and conduct necessary verification in the presence of Officers and Shri Sanjay Subrao Nikam, Managing Director of the Company. On completion of the verification at the CSEZ premises of M/s Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. at Plot No. 16-A(SDF), Ground Floor, CSEZ, The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vide letter dated 128-2014 informed that their verification has revealed that 10.5 KG of gold inported: them was nu, available in the premises. Further investigation led to recovery of the said gold from the premises of two jewellery old workers at Thrissur. A further recovery of gold earlier smuggled out was recovered from the premises of a Jewellery in Angamally. 5.1 The importer, through the reply dated 27.10.2014, explained its stand on the charges against the importer. The Development Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2015, directed or held as follows: Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** “M/s Ashwin Gold Private Ltd has caused loss of foreign exchange by way of import of Cold Bullion and non-realization of subsequent export proceeds in respect of exports made by them. Therefore I, impose a penalty of Rs. 10,04,00,000/(Rupees Ten crore four lakh only) for their failure to realize the export proceeds in respect of gold ornaments exported from the Cochin SEZ as per provisions under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 2. The company has deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the Letter of Approval and Bond cum legal Undertaking executed by them with the Development Commissioner by illegal removal of imported gold after availing duty exemption which were otherwise required to be utilized for their authorized operations i.e. manufacture and export of gold ornaments, causing violation of the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 & SEZ Rules, 2006. I therefore, impose a penalty of Rs. Rs. 1.28.00.000/- (Rupees One crore twenty eight lakhs only) for the violation committed by the unit as explained above as per provisions under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 3. Shri Sanjay Subrao Nikam, Managing Director of the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** company is held solely responsible for masterminding of the illegal activities of M/s Ashwin Gold (P) Ltd. and I impose a personal penalty of Rs 11,30,000/- (Rupoes Elevan Lakh thirty thousand only) for the illegal activities on his pert as ManagiDirector of the company as per provisions under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 4. I further order cancellation of letter of approval No. 09/16/2011:ILCSEZ dated 4-10-201 as amended(as already approved by the Approval Committee in its meeting held on 221-2015) as per Rule 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005 for the offenses and violations committed by the unit as explained above as per provisions under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 5.2 The importer filed an appeal before the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, New Delhi and the appellate authority, by order dated 07.09.2018, dismissed the appeal. The importer Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** filed a Review Petition before the appellate authority, and the review was rejected by an order dated 19.06.2020. The cancellation orders and imposition of penalty on the import under the SEZ Act are questioned in W.P.(C) No.27835/2021. 5.3 AGPL/importer filed W.P.(C) No.9058/2022 for a mandamus seeking implementation of the order dated 17.02.2022 of CESTAT directing the release of 4 Kg of gold. 6. Mr Sreelal Warrier, persuasively, but with considerable force, challenges the reasoning and conclusion recorded by the CESTAT in the order dated 17.02.2022 as illegal and unavailable in the case circumstances. By referring to the places of search, seizure, or recovery of gold, as stated in paragraph 4, it is argued that the CESTAT committed a serious error in law in expanding the jurisdiction of CSEZ beyond the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** notified area and thus has debilitated the power and function and duty of the Officers under Act 1962. There is no quarrel on the scope of SEZ Act and the privileges enjoyed by a unit located in CSEZ. The jurisdiction is not to be appreciated on the mere application of provisions of SEZ Act. But the jurisdiction is appreciated and applied to on the appreciation of jurisdictional facts and the relevant provision of law. Reproducing his argument, namely, the CESTAT in its appellate jurisdiction examined the provisions of the SEZ Act and the overriding effect of a few provisions of the said law and declared that the Officers of the Customs Department are without jurisdiction in respect of offences noticed by them in DTA, the exclusivity of jurisdiction is a privilege enjoyed by a unit in CSEZ and limited to the notified CSEZ is rendered by appreciating the provision Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** in SEZ Act. A breach occasioning in the functioning of a unit in an SEZ, be whatever it is, the Development Commissioner and the functionaries therein have exclusive jurisdiction and power to initiate action against the erring unit established in an SEZ. But, the commission or omission, the origin of which is in the SEZ, travels beyond the notified SEZ, such commission or omission has two consequences in law: under the SEZ Act, and the authorities empowered in the DTA, such as Customs Act etc. The purpose of any action under SEZ Act is to cancel the permission granted to a unit and collect the penalty for established violation, whereas, for smuggling or illegally importing goods into a DTA, the consequences are as per Act 1962. The Officers of the Customs Department alone are entitled to collect the duty, penalty, confiscation in lieu of duty, Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** penalty etc., under Act 1962. By inviting our attention to the places where the imported goods were searched and seized, he argues that only the Officers of the Customs Department have jurisdiction. The orders relied on by the CESTAT are casespecific, and the alleged commissions or omissions in the decisions relied on by the Tribunal substantially have occasioned in CSEZ. The preference, given to the judgment reported in _Bharti J Gandhi v. Union of India_[1] and against _Union of India v. Oswal Agricomm Pvt. Ltd_[2] of Gujarat High Court is not on justifiable and legal reasons and sound principles. The learned Counsel argues that the appeals filed by the importers are allowed on the ground of lack of authority of the Officers of the Customs Department, and the CESTAT did not examine the > 1 2010 (257) ELT 168 (Guj.) 2 2011 TIOL 733 AHM CUS Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** merits of the order under appeal. Therefore, he would confine the argument only to the jurisdictional aspects. 6.1 Our attention has not been invited to the Scheme or the provisions in Act 1962, and to Sections 21 and 22 of the SEZ Act, which deals with a Single Enforcement Officer or agency for notified offences; investigation, inspection, search or seizure by an Officer specified under Sections 20 and 21. The sheet-anchor of his argument is that, in categorical words, Section 21(2) states that the Central Government, by general or special order, authorizes any officer or agency to be the enforcement officer or agency in respect of any **notified offence or offences committed in a Special Economic Zone** . The argument is that Section 21 refers to and deals explicitly with a notified offence or an offence committed in an SEZ. In the case on hand, the Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** offence is under the Customs Act and not detected in the SEZ or limited to the bounds of SEZ. Explained, he argues that the inspection by the Officers of the Customs Department of the unit of the importer in SEZ on 11.08.2014 is to verify whether the removal of gold from CSEZ into DTA is preceded by permission or not. On the day of the inspection and search, it was clear that the movement of imported gold from CSEZ into DTA is unauthorized. The place where the gold is seized, since is in DTA, the Customs Officers have power and jurisdiction to levy duty; penalty and to order confiscation of smuggled gold into the Country. Paragraph 8.1 of the order under appeal is distinguishable to the case on hand if established by the Department as a serious omission under Act 1962, amounting to smuggling gold into the DTA or Indian territory. The smuggled Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** gold is dealt with as per Act 1962. The Officers of the Customs exercise the jurisdiction as per Act 1962. 7. Mr Augustine supports the order under appeal by reading the order. According to his argument, the order under appeal is a detailed order on all the aspects touching the core controversy in the batch of appeals. Further, it is stated that Section 55 of SEZ Act provides for Rulemaking power and Rule 42 of SEZ Rules 2006 deals with the procedure for subcontracting in DTA etc. Therefore, _per se_ , the movement of gold from SEZ to DTA is not prohibited but regulated. In the case on hand, the importer was incapacitated from filing a proper reply and explanation before the authorities under Act 1962 or under SEZ Act which resulted in the order of imposition of customs duty, penalty etc., and cancellation fine under SEZ Act. The gist Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** of his argument is that one must keep in perspective the scope and object of establishing SEZs. There is no prohibition for the movement of goods from SEZ to DTA. In the case on hand, it is argued with vehemence that the gold has been moved from SEZ to DTA under permission/authorisation. The judgments relied on by the CESTAT apply to the circumstances of the case, and therefore the findings of the CESTAT are tenable. He prays for dismissing the appeal. 8. We have taken note of the sequence of events leading up to the show cause notice, Order-in-Original and the order of the CESTAT. Without burdening our judgment with repetition, in a nutshell, we recap that the starting point in the case on hand is the search and seizure on receipt of reliable input by the Officers of the Customs Department in DTA. The illegalities Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** alleged to have been noticed on respective dates of investigations carried out by the Officer of the Customs Department have led them to the unit of the importer in CSEZ. The show cause notice was issued to the importer and the persons dealing with the importer and imported goods in DTA without following the procedure or moving the goods illegally. Though a few submissions are made on the reasons for such alleged stealth movement of gold from CSEZ to DTA, neither are we referring to them nor getting prejudiced by such argument on the case pleaded by the importers. The simple fact that begs the question is whether the Customs Officers are without jurisdiction for seizure or recovery of material in a search carried out in a DTA. Section 21 of SEZ Act deals with the notified offence or offence occasioning in an SEZ. The Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** circumstances stated in the show cause notice are accepted as true and correct; it cannot be said that the subject violations happened in SEZ and were terminated in SEZ. Therefore, only the authorities under the SEZ Act have jurisdiction to act against the importer. In a situation as the present, this Court is of the view that for alleged unauthorized movement of goods/gold, the Development Commissioner etc., would have jurisdiction on the establishment and continuance of a unit in an SEZ and for importing goods/gold into DTA without paying customs duty, the Customs Department have jurisdiction on the information gathered in a DTA in the search carried by them. The CESTAT reasons that when two interpretations are possible, the interpretation favourable to a taxpayer must be accepted is entirely out of context. Jurisdiction, in fact, or law, irrespective Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** of the nature of the enactment, has different manifestations. The CESTAT ought to have noticed the subtility of the area of operation in appreciating the competence or jurisdiction of Officers of the Customs Department on the one hand and the Development Commissioner on the other. For the above reasoning, we are convinced and accordingly hold that in the case on hand, for the circumstances noted above, the search and seizure have occasioned in DTA. Therefore, the Officers of the Customs Department, _vis-à-vis_ the alleged illegality noted against both the importer and the individuals who handled the gold moved out of SEZ, have jurisdiction under Act 1962. The denial of jurisdiction to the Officers of the Customs Department for offences or violations noticed in DTA would enhance the area of an SEZ and diminish the jurisdiction of the Act 1962. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** The reversal of Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2016 on the jurisdiction issue by the CESTAT is unsustainable, and illegal, and substantial questions stated, arise for consideration. Further, the jurisdiction and _non-obstante_ clause are to be understood in the language in which the Parliament enacted Sections 21 and 22 of SEZ Act. The CESTAT’s order insofar as the jurisdiction issue is concerned is set aside, and the questions are accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the importer. 9. The above consideration takes us to the next point considered by the primary authority in paragraph no.115, which reads as follows: “Regarding the 4 kg. of gold bars sent from UAE to M/s. Ashwin Gold, lying un-cleared at Air Cargo Complex, Nedumbassery, it is seen on scrutiny that proper documents involved in genuine Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** transaction such as purchase order issued by the importer, document regarding payment made to the overseas supplier etc. are absent. Further, Shri. Sanjay had no facility to manufacture gold ornaments in his unit within CSEZ as he had removed machineries like the power press machine used in the manufacturing of ornaments and hence, the only way in which Shri Sanjay could deal with the 4 Kg of gold, if released to him, would be by removing the same out to DTA clandestinely as he was doing earlier. Moreover, the license of the unit of M/s Ashwin Gold within SEZ was suspended and hence the said unit has ceased functioning within CSEZ. Neither, in his statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 nor in his reply to SCN, has Shri. Sanjay submitted any details/ documents to prove either bonafide nature of the transactions or as to show how he intended to use it, especially when licence of his unit within SEZ was suspended and he himself had removed all essential machinery from there. In this circumstance, the import of 4 Kg of gold by M/s. Ashwin Gold can not be considered as a bonafide import for use by unit within CSEZ but acquires the character of a transaction where gold was attempted to be imported for removing it Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** clandestinely to DTA without payment of Customs duty thus making it liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and (o) of Customs Act, 1962.” 9.1 The CESTAT, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order under appeal, had considered whether the 4 Kg gold bar imported by AGPL/importer lying in an uncleared area at Air Cargo Complex Nedumbaserry could be subjected to confiscation or payment of duty and penalty under Act 1962. On analysis of circumstances admitted by the Revenue and the importer, the CESTAT notices that it is not the case of Revenue that as on the date of said import, AGPL/importer did not have license or authorization to import 4 Kg gold. On 19.08.2014, the letter of approval dated 04.10.2011 for setting up a unit in CSEZ was suspended till the finalisation of the case. On 27.03.2015, Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the authorisation was cancelled. The 4 Kg of gold imported before 19.08.2014 was still in the custody and jurisdiction at the Air Cargo Complex, Cochin Airport. The gold has been confiscated on the assumption that the 4 Kg of gold is smuggled. The finding of the Tribunal is excerpted at this stage of our consideration. “7. The Commissioner has in fact called the shots at a very early stage and in haste. Said gold was also confiscated on assumptions and presumptions which according to us, is also too premature, which action is discernibly contrary to the basic principles of jurisprudence inasmuch as the same being contrary to principles of natural justice, rule of law and fair trial. It is also the basic tenet of Indian Criminal jurisprudence that there shall not be any presumption of guilt and that an accused shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty. Even in the rarest of rare cases or the most heinous offences and in respect of habitual offenders as well, the trial courts would conduct trials separately and conviction in one case is never Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** taken as the conclusive proof, to convict him in another case, without a trial. There is no allegation either in the show-cause notice or even in the impugned order that the very import in the case on hand was improper or being contrary to any law which would make the goods liable for confiscation. Thus, the confiscation of 4 kgs. gold bars is unsustainable as the order suffers from serious legal infirmities as pointed out. We therefore cannot accept order of confiscation of 4kgs. gold which is clearly a case of abuse of process of law. On this score, the order confiscating 4 kgs. gold imported by the appellants M/s. Ashwin Gold Pvt. Ltd. cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned order of confiscation of 4 kgs. gold is set aside. 9.2 Though Mr Sreelal Warrier makes an argument that the cancellation of the letter of approval for the establishment of a unit in CSEZ renders, for all purposes, further import of gold by the importer, with status as a unit in CSEZ, is disabled. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with confiscating the 4 kg of Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** gold. Mr Augustine contends that in anticipation of committing an offence, preventive orders are made under a few special enactments, and in the case on hand, the power, and the jurisdiction of the functionaries under the Act are attracted with the occasioning of one circumstance or the other set out in Act 1962. 10. There are two aspects for independent and objective consideration: search and seizure in DTA and, conversely, an investigation into commissions or omissions in an SEZ. The circumstance is that 4 Kg of gold was imported by the AGPL/importer when it had authorization and permission. The imported gold was lying in an uncleared area at the Air Cargo Complex at Nedumbassery, Cochin Airport. Stock, goods or gold lying in an uncleared area cannot be confiscated on the ground Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** that upon completion of import, the said goods could also be used for a purpose otherwise provided for by law. Succinctly put, the Order-in-Orginal, in anticipation of the 4 Kg of gold being misused or moved out of CSEZ, has been confiscated. We consider that the reasoning of the CESTAT, insofar as 4 kg gold is concerned, is contextual, correct and tenable. Hence, to this limited extent, the said finding does not warrant our interference. W.P.(C) No.27835/2021 11. We have heard Mr P A Augustine and Ms Krishna for the parties. 12. Mr Augustine argues that the importer has been operating its activities in the unit established in CSEZ strictly in compliance with the requirement of law and Rules. To Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** illustrate, he invites our attention to Ext.P4 dated 11.02.2013 of the importer requesting permission to move gold imported into CSEZ to manufacture jewellery and ornaments into DTA. On 14.02.2013 (Ext.P5), permission was granted to move 50 Kg of gold to DTA. He fairly admits that the currency of the permission granted by Ext.P5 is for one year. The importer has applied for permission or extension of the period to the Development Commissioner, and orders have been made by the authorities. The suspension letter dated 19.08.2014 has been directed to be treated as show cause notice by the order dated 27.03.2015 in W.P.(C) No.27189/2014. The importer, no doubt, submitted a reply to the suspension letter dated 19.08.2014, and for want of records, it is averred that a detailed reply could not be submitted. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 13. The Development Commissioner, by order dated 27.03.2015, cancelled the approval dated 04.10.2011. In the Order-in-Original dated 27.03.2015, the Development Commissioner, it is argued, has assumed and presumed the quantity of gold imported and exported, the value of foreign exchange earned and the facility available to adjust the payments between the import of gold and export of gold without actually paying and receiving foreign exchange. These details are stated before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has yet to consider all the objections and grounds raised by the appellant, and it is recorded in the appellate order dated 07.09.2018 that none appeared for the importer on a few hearing dates. He invites our attention to Exts.P16, P17, P18, P20 and P22 and contends that the appeal will be heard and Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** disposed of only after affording an opportunity. 14. We have, on the earlier occasion, directed Adv Krishna to produce the records of the appellate authority. Adv Krishna referring to the conclusions recorded by the primary authority, persuasively argues that the importer is subjected to penalty from the perspective of obligations arising under SEZ Act and the cancellation or collection of fine or penalty from the importer is independent of other actions available against the importer by other authorities. She canvasses that the Development Commissioner considered every aspect raised by the importer. The order dated 25.03.2015 was made on the material available with the Development Commissioner. The importer did not file material along with the reply or during the personal hearing provided in this behalf. The material now Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** relied on by the importer is _ex post facto_ and, for the first time, brought before this Court or before the appellate authority. 15. The ground that the appellate authority did not afford a fair and complete opportunity to the importer is no reason to find fault with the detailed conclusions arrived at by the Development Commissioner. Since the prayer in the instant writ petition can be treated as one of _certiorari_ , it is commended for our consideration after looking at the record to determine whether the order of appellate authority is justifiable from the record. If not, the record suggests that the matter needs to be re-examined by the appellate authority; the order of the appellate authority alone can be set aside and remitted to the appellate authority. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 16. We have noted both the contentions Mr Augustine urged. We are of the view that the objection raised by Adv Krishna on the timing of documents now introduced, in the absence of a reply at the first instance, whether the documents now produced could be relied upon etc., to upset the findings of the Development Commissioner are matters to be considered by the appellate authority. The issue has a substantial consequence on both sides. The denial of opportunity cannot be gainsaid, and an order has been made without allowing the importer a fair hearing. Still, as a Writ Court, after perusing the record, we notice that the written submissions, along with documents filed before the appellate authority, are examined in the context of the controversy. A decision on the challenge to the order of the Commissioner is rendered thereafter. As we Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** are satisfied that the matter needs to be remitted to the appellate authority, we are not entertaining the other argument on merits. Hence, the orders of appellate authority dated 07.09.2018 and 19.06.2020 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for consideration and decision afresh. W.P.(C) No.9058/2022 ## 17. The prayer reads as follows: “a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to comply with Ext P-6 Final order by releasing 4 Kg gold detained in airport vide Ext P-2 and refund due amount by adjusting excess amount collected from the petitioners including duty collected for gold worth 2051.0105 grams, Rs.4 lakhs paid as redemption fine for release of 4346.890 grams of gold and refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 12, 12,558/- with interest. b) Grant such other relieves that this Hon'ble Court may deem Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 18. _Apropos_ the findings in this common judgment, we believe the petitioner has made a case for issuing proper directions to the respondents. (a) Given the confirmation of the finding recorded by the CESTAT on the entitlement of the importer for the release of 4 Kg gold, we permit the petitioners herein to lodge a Bill of Entry by enclosing a copy of this judgment. (b) The 1st respondent entertains the Bill of Entry, and the consignment covered by the Bill of Entry is subject to the rate of gold and the tariff on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry. - (c) The 1st respondent, as per the extant procedure, releases Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the consignment provisionally within four weeks from the date of filing the Bill of Entry, subject to payment of applicable duty by the importer. ## Summary _Customs Appeal Nos.9/2022; 10/2022; 11/2022; 12/2022; 13/2022; 14/2022; 15/2022_ : Except the finding recorded in paragraph 8.1 of the CESTAT order, are set aside, and appeals are allowed as indicated above. The CESTAT restores the appeals in the file other than the subject matter covered by paragraph 115 of the Order-in-Original dated 30.05.2016. The appeals are remitted to CESTAT for consideration afresh. _W.P.(C) No.27835/2021_ : Order of the appellate authority dated 19.06.2020 is set aside, and the case is remitted to the appellate authority for consideration and disposal. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** _W.P.(C) No.9058/2022_ : Disposed of in terms of the conclusions recorded in Customs Appeal No.9/2022. Sd/- **S.V.BHATTI** JUDGE Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI** JUDGE jjj The word “provisionally” occurring in the second line of para 18(c) in the Judgment in WP(C) 9058/2022(F) dated 22.12.2022 stands deleted as per order dated 13.06.2023 in IA No. 1/2023 in WP(C) 9058/2022 (F). Sd/- JOINT REGISTRAR Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 ## **-61-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9058/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.14. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER -INORIGINAL NO.COC -CUSTM-PREV-COM-01-16-17 DATED 30.05.16. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.18 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3979/2018. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WORKSHEET ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2021 IN W.A.NO.1315/2020. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.20358/16 TO 20099/17 DATED 16.02.2022. - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 27.07.16 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF MANDATORY PRE- DEPOSIT. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2022. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1044/32/2016-CX DATED 26.07.2016. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 10/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER-IN ORIGINAL NO. COC - CUSTM - PRV - COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 21296/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **-63-** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 11/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. COCCUSTM-PRV- COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 21329/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 12/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. COCCUSTM-PRV- COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 21332/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 13/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. COCCUSTM-PRV-COM-01 -16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 21357/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **-66-** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 14/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. COCCUSTM-PRV- COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 21331/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 15/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER-IN ORIGINAL NO. COC - CUSTM - PRV - COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), COCHIN. Annexure A2 CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF COMMON FINAL ORDER DATED 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. C 20099/2017 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT (DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **-68-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27835/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPROVAL DATED 04-102011 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RB1/2011-12/264 DATED 17-11-2011 ISSUED BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF HAND BOOK OF PROCEDURE - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQEUST DATED 11-02-2013 SEEKING PERMISSION FOR TAKING IMPORTED GOLD BARS FOR JOB WORK OUT OF CSEZ - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION LETTER DATED 14-022013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE INVOICE DATED 30-06-2014 - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-09-2014 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 19-082014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27-10-2014 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. 09/16/2011CSEZ/1628 A DATED 27-03-2015 Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 - **-69-** - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPIES OF THE LETTER DATED 21-04-2016 WITH COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE OF FIRC SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-06-2016 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 24/04/2011 RTI/CSEZ(VOL.II)/4147 DATED 18-07-2016 - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER -IN ORIGINAL NO. COC-CUSTM-PREV-COM-01-06-2017 DATED 30-05-2016 - Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE 0RDER -IN-APPEAL F.NO. 01/92/171/47/AM 16/PC-VI/126 DATED 07-09-2 - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28-11-2019 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 26-02-2020 WITH EVIDENCE REGARDING EMAIL COMMUNICATION. - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER F.NO. 12013/04/2019-ADJ/AC DATED 19-06-2020 WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 06-08-2020 - Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-09-2020 Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE F.NO. R-17(2)/2020-RTI DATED NIL SEPTEMBER 2020 - Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT DATED 27-10-2020 Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **==> picture [22 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 16/02/2019-FT (COORDINATION) DATED 15-01-2021. Cus.Appeal Nos.9/2022, 10/2022, 11/2022, 12/2022, 13/2022, 14/2022, 15/2022, W.P.(C) Nos.9058/2022 & 27835/2021 **-71-** ## **APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 9/2022** ## PETITIONER ANNEXURES - Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. COCCUSTM-PRV-COM-01-16-17 DATED 30/05/2016 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),COCHIN. - Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL ORDER 17.02.2022 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 21358 OF 2016 OF THE HON'BLE CESTAT(DIVISION BENCH), SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. 09/2011/CSEZ DATED 27-3-2015 PASSED BY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION DATED 14-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER TO REMOVE 50 KGS OF GOLD TO M/S. MAHAVISHNU INDUSTRIES LOCATED IN THE DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA (DTA)