Judgment :- In all these writ petitions the facts are similar and the same question is raised and therefore one of the Writ Petitions, No. 1615 of 1965 may be dealt with. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to return to the petitioner the goods covered by Ref. No. C. VIII/48/273/64-CIU dated 8-4-1965. 1.The petitioner is a dealer in kirana and chemicals and a sales tax and income-tax assessee. The petitioner firm was obtaining supplies of camphor, cloves, cassia etc. from dealers in Bombay, Delhi and Calcutta including Jayachandlal Sethia with whom the petitioner had a running account. During November and December 1964 Jayachandlal Sethia despatched to the petitioner-firm four cases of camphor and one bag of cassia. The officers of the Central Intelligence Unit of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Madras, seized those goods. The petitioner approached the Central Excise Department for the release of the goods, producing the railway receipts endorsed in its favour. On 11-1-1965 the petitioner wrote to the department undertaking to execute the necessary bond for obtaining release of the goods pending investigation. The petitioner caused a lawyer's notice to be issued to the Department on 18-1-1965. On 21-1-1965 the petitioner's counsel was informed that the matter was still under consideration. The petitioner received a notice from the Department that they were taking samples of the goods belonging to the petitioner-firm. On 22-3-1965 the Department intimated the petitioner that action would be taken in a fortnight's time. In spite of assurances, no steps were taken. It is stated that the petitioner's counsel met the Collector and the Collector informed him that the seizure of goods were effected in pursuance of information received from the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and that, so far as he was concerned, there was no material for adjudicating upon the seizure of the goods and that he has decided to transfer the case to Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, for adjudication of the same under section 122 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter filed this Writ Petition. 2.In this petition it is submitted that the Collector of Customs has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and in any event it is contended that the Collector of Customs, Madras, has no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The petitioner thereafter filed this Writ Petition. 2.In this petition it is submitted that the Collector of Customs has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and in any event it is contended that the Collector of Customs, Madras, has no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. In deciding the question whether the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has got jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice in this matter, a few sections of the Customs Act, 1962, will have to be referred to. Section 2(8) defines 'Collector of Customs' as including an Additional Collector of Customs. Section 2(34) defines 'proper officer' in relation to any functions to be performed under the Act as meaning the officer of Customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Collector of Customs. Section 3 classifies the officers of Customs as Collectors of Customs, Appellate Collectors of Customs, Deputy Collectors of Customs, Assistant Collectors of Customs and such other class of officers of customs as may be appointed for the purposes of the Act. Section 4 empowers the Central Government to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the officers of Customs, and sub-section (2) of that section empowers the Central Govt. to authorise the Board, Collector of Customs or a Deputy or Assistant Collector of Customs to appoint officers of Customs below the rank of Assistant Collector of Customs. Section 5 (1) provides that subject to such conditions and limitations as the Board may impose, an officer of Customs may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under the Act. The Central Government has framed rules under Section 4. Under G. S. R. 213 the Central Government acting under Section 4(1) appointed the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table given in the Rule to be Collector of Customs for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the said Table. For Ports of Calcutta and Haldia and the Hooghly river between them, Dum Dum Airport and the area under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta and Howrah Corporations, Collector of Customs, Calcutta, is specified as the concerned Collector and for the Port of Madras, the Meenambakkam Airport and the area under the jurisdiction of the Madras Corporation, the Collector of Customs, Madras is the officer specified. Section 122 of the Act provides that an order of confiscation or penalty may be adjudged, -(a)without limit, by a Collector of Customs or a Deputy Collector of Customs; (b)where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed ten thousand rupees and where the penalty proposed to be imposed does not exceed two thousand rupees, by an Assistant Collector of Customs; (c)where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed one thousand rupees and where the penalty proposed to be imposed does not exceed two hundred rupees, by a gazetted officer of customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs. It is submitted by Mr. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner that a reading of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 122 together would show that the jurisdiction of the Customs Officers are demarcated by territorial boundaries and by pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel the notification under Section 4(1) would indicate that the jurisdiction is territorial and so far as properties that are found in the Madras state are concerned, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has no jurisdiction. This contention cannot be accepted as a reading of Section 5 shows that an officer of Customs is empowered to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on him under the Act. This power is only subject to such conditions and limitations as may be imposed by the Board or under the Act. There is no restriction on the powers of the officer of Customs restricting the area by the Board or under the Act. Section 122 limits the pecuniary jurisdiction of the various officers. But that section does not help to decide the question at issue which relates to territorial jurisdiction. The Collector or Customs, Calcutta, has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. It is contended that as the goods were seized at Madras, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has no jurisdiction. The seizure of goods is under section 110, which says that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. It is contended that as the goods were seized at Madras, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has no jurisdiction. The seizure of goods is under section 110, which says that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. Sub-section (2) provides that- "Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (1) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Collector of Customs for a period not exceeding six months" * 3.The section empowers the proper officer to seize the goods and keep them in his custody. But he is bound to return the goods to the person from whose possession they were seized if no notice in respect of the seizure is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months for a further period not exceeding six months. In this case the goods were seized in January 1965 and the show cause notice was given by the Collector of Customs in November 1965 and what the Collector proposes to do under section 124 is to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty on the petitioner. The question will be whether the Collector of Customs, Calcutta has jurisdiction in this case to issue a show cause notice. Section 111 enumerates the goods that are liable to confiscation; section 112 specifies persons who are liable for penalty for improper importation of goods. Section 113 provides for confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported. Section 114 to 121 provide for other punishments. If on the facts of this case the Collector of Customs, Calcutta is entitled to confiscate the goods of the petitioner seized at Madras, or is empowered to impose a penalty on the petitioner, I am unable to see how he can be said to be acting without jurisdiction. According to the respondent, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal at Calcutta advised the Collector of Customs, Madras that parcels booked by rail and road from Calcutta were contraband goods and the goods were therefore seized at Madras. According to the respondent, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, West Bengal at Calcutta advised the Collector of Customs, Madras that parcels booked by rail and road from Calcutta were contraband goods and the goods were therefore seized at Madras. It is also the contention of the respondent that the goods emanated from Calcutta and that the field of investigation exists only at Calcutta from where the goods were consigned. Though the Collectors are assigned territorial limits under the Rule G.S.R. 213 framed by the Government under section 4(1), there is nothing in the Act, which places any restriction on the Collector of Customs of a particular place to proceed under Section 124 and confiscate the goods if within his territorial jurisdiction there is cause for directing confiscation of goods or imposing of penalty. On the allegations of the respondent, the offence, if any, which would entitle confiscation or penalty appears to have been committed in Calcutta and the jurisdiction of the Customs Collector, Calcutta, cannot be denied. 4.It was next contended that the Collector of Customs, Madras, has no right to transfer the case to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, as he is not empowered to do so under the Act. In his communication to the petitioner the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, stated that the concerned cases are being transferred to the Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal, Calcutta. It is true the Collector of Customs, Madras, has no right to transfer the cases that are within his jurisdiction to the Collector having jurisdiction in some other area. But obviously what the Collector of Customs, Madras, meant was that he was handing over the files to the Collector having jurisdiction. There is no transfer in the sense that the Madras Collector was transferring to the Collector, Calcutta who had no jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to consider at this stage whether the Collector of Customs, Madras, has jurisdiction over these goods for that will depend on the facts that may be disclosed in the investigation. It is sufficient to state that the contention of the learned counsel that the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 5.On this finding, the Writ petitions will have to be dismissed and are dismissed.