IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that jurisdiction for customs seizures is determined by statutory notifications, and reasonable belief is sufficient for seizure under the Customs Act.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.

1. The revenue, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal is the appellant. They are aggrieved by the order passed in WPO 334 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 filed by the first respondent herein. In the said writ petition, the first respondent sought for setting aside the inventory cum seizure list dated February 06, 2024 as also the summons dated March 26, 2024. The respondent writ petitioner also sought for a direction upon the appellant to unconditionally release the goods being 200 bags containing five metric tonnes of areca nuts which were seized by the customs authorities under the impugned seizure memo. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:-

2. The writ petitioner procured five metric tonnes of areca nuts, from a supplier at Imphal, Manipur under three GST invoices bearing nos. 630, 631 and 632 all dated February 05, 2024. The value of the consignment was declared as Rs.34,16,765/- and they were despatched by air from Imphal under cover of three e-way bills dated February 05, 2024. The goods arrived at the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport, Kolkata on February 05, 2024. When the writ petitioner went to collect the goods from the domestic cargo complex of the International Airport on February 07, 2024,he was informed that the Preventive Officer of customs SRI Unit, the 5th respondent herein visited in-bound domestic cargo warehouse of the International Airport on February 05, 2024 and detained/seized the goods. The reason behind such detention was that the goods were suspected to be of foreign origin and illegally imported into India in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. The goods were seized on February 06, 2024 under Section 110 of the Customs Act (the Act) after which an inventory-cum-seizure list of even date was prepared and reasons were recorded for the seizure.

3. It is stated that the 5th respondent directed the Cargo Manager, Indigo Airlines to call the writ petitioner however he neither appeared nor claimed the goods nor contacted the 5th respondent and therefore the goods were seized under Section 110 (1) of the Act on February 06, 2024. The writ petitioner submitted representations on February 09, 2024 and March 01, 2024 requesting the customs authorities to unconditionally release the seized goods without delay. Subsequently on March 04, 2024, summons was issued to the writ petitioner directing him to appear on March 18, 2024 with relevant documents which were complied with by the writ petitioner and produced the copies of the representations dated February 09, 2024 and March 01, 2024. The second summons dated March 26, 2024 was issued directing the writ petitioner to appear on April 12, 2024, at that stage the writ petition was filed.

4. The writ petitioner contended that the customs authorities have effected the seizure without authority of law and jurisdiction, by placing reliance on the Notification No. 82/2017-Customs (N.T) dated August 24, 2017 issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. It was contended that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata and subordinate authorities under their respective control have jurisdiction over ports of Kolkata and Haldia and the International Airport areas, the areas under the jurisdiction of Kolkata, Howrah and South Suburban Corporations, so much of the Hooghly river as is downstream of the northern limit of the Kolkata Port and all land as are within the 10 kilometres of the high water mark and spring tide on either side of the river, while the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, the appellant herein and subordinate authorities under his control have jurisdiction over the rest of the State of West Bengal and therefore the purported seizure carried out by the 5th respondent namel