IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.
Bangari Bhola – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
WPO No.334 Of 2024
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Jurisdiction - Customs Seizure - Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110(1), 110(2), 4(1) - The court interpreted the jurisdictional authority of customs officers under the Customs Act, emphasizing that specific officers have exclusive jurisdiction over designated areas, impacting the validity of the seizure and detention orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, involved in trading areca nuts, had goods seized at an airport under the Customs Act, 1962, claiming the seizure was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction by the Preventive Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Preventive Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at the airport, rendering the seizure and detention orders invalid.
Issues: Whether the Preventive Officer had the jurisdiction to detain and seize goods under the Customs Act at the airport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that jurisdiction over specific areas is conferred to designated customs officers, and actions taken by unauthorized officers are invalid.
Result: The court quashed the detention and seizure orders and directed the return of goods to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) :
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the seizure of the goods of the petitioner effected vide inventory cum seizure list dated 6th February, 2024. The petitioner claims to be involved in the business of trading in areca nuts (hereafter referred to as “the goods”) throughout the State of West Bengal. The petitioner in usual course of business dealings and transactions had procured a total quantity of 5 metric tons of the goods from a supplier based in Imphal, Manipur, under three separate invoices all dated 5th February, 2024. The value of aforesaid consignment was Rs.34,16,765/-(Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid goods were dispatched from Imphal to Kolkata under cover of separate e-weigh bills all, dated 5th February, 2024 and were booked on an Indigo Airlines Flight from Imphal to Kolkata. Incidentally, upon arrival of the said goods at the Netaji Subash Chandra International Airport, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “said airport”) on 5th February, 2024, when the petitioner had attempted to collect the same from the domestic cargo complex of the said airport on 7th February, 2024, he had come to learn that the goods had been detained on the ground that the same had been allegedly imported into India, in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. This was followed by seizure of goods by issuance notice/inventory of seizure dated 6th February, 2024 issued by the Preventive Officer of the Customs Authority.
2. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the inventory cum seizure list dated 6th February, 2024 submits that the said inventory cum seizure list has not been issued in consonance with the provision of Section 110(1) of the said Act. The said inventory/seizure list does not record the satisfaction of the proper officer that he has reasons to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation under the said Act. It is further submitted that the preventive officer did not have the jurisdiction at the first instance to initiate any proceeding including, detention and seizure under the provisions of the said Act, within the jurisdictional area of the said airport.
3. By drawing attention of this Court to the notification dated 24th August, 2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) (Central Board of Excise and Customs), it is submitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the said Act, and in suppression of notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 16th September, 2014 and the other relevant notifications as appearing therein had appointed officers mentioned in column (3) of Table 2 of the said notification to be the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs and the officers mentioned in the column (4) of the table 2 thereof, to be Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Customs, for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of Table 2. It is submitted that under Table 2 serial no. 10, under the corresponding column nos. (3) and (4) the officers exercising jurisdiction over the areas specified under the corresponding column (2) have been identified. They are (i)Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, (ii)Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata and, under column no. (4) – Additional Commissioners, or Joint Commissioners, or Deputy Commissioners of Customs working under the control of – (i)Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, (ii)Principal Commiss
Jurisdictional authority under the Customs Act is exclusive to designated officers for specific areas, invalidating unauthorized actions.
The court established that jurisdiction for customs seizures is determined by statutory notifications, and reasonable belief is sufficient for seizure under the Customs Act.
Customs Officers can seize goods within their jurisdiction based on reasonable belief of smuggling, even if formalities are completed outside that jurisdiction.
The court emphasized that interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner, and the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before....
No requirement in the Act or Rules, nor do the principles of natural justice and fair play require that the witnesses whose statements were recorded and relied upon to issue the show-cause notice, ar....
A writ petition challenging seizure under the Customs Act may be considered non-maintainable if a related and previously adjudicated matter on jurisdictional grounds remains unresolved.
The court validated the customs authority's seizure of goods based on reasonable suspicion, upholding the impossibility of judicial review on the sufficiency of the officer's reasons.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.