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 invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by means of this writ petition whereby, the petitioner has challenged the action of seizure of areca nuts vide seizure memo and Panchnama, both dtd. 29/8/2020 under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice dtd. 26/2/2021 under Sec. 124 of the Act.

2. I have heard Shri P.K. Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas, the respondents are represented by Shri S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department, who also questions the maintainability of the writ petition itself and therefore, the said objection has to be decided first.

3. Before going to the issue which has arisen for adjudication, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.

4. The petitioner no. 1 is the proprietor of M/s. SR Enterprise whereas the petitioner no. 2 is the Power of Attorney holder. The petitioners deal with the business of areca nuts for which license has been issued under Ss. 25/57/95 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. The petitioners also claim to have procured GST registration certificate.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that dried areca nuts were purchased from different purchasers. In May, 2020-6489 Kgs., in June, 2020-32560 kgs and in July, 2020, there was both purchase and sale and the remaining stock was 48336 kgs. Similarly, after the transaction in the month of August, 2020, the petitioners had total stock of dried areca nuts of 50757 kgs. out of which a quantity of 40300 kgs. were sold. The petitioners have projected that the Customs Authority has made the allegations that the aforesaid goods (areca nuts) were illegally procured from Myanmar.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that documents relating to every purchase and sale were available and therefore, the allegation of illegal procurement was baseless. It is contended that the Seizure was not done from any Custom area within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act but were seized from the Railway Station after being transported from the godown of the petitioner no.1. It is, therefore, urged that the seizure of the goods was without any credible information that those were smuggled and therefore, such seizure is bad in law. It is further submitted that there was no satisfaction arrived at out of objective materials to make such seizure and the same appears to be done on irrelevant considerations. Allegation of violation of Sec. 110 of the Act has been made by submitting that no specific order for seizure was passed. Similarly, allegations of violation of Instruction No. 01/2017-Customs dtd. 8/2/2017 has been made. It is submitted that the seizure was, otherwise made haphazardly causing grave prejudice to the petitioners.

7. Shri Garodia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the samples were drawn without any scientific manner and while recording the statements at the time of seizure, there was not a single statement supporting the case of the authorities. The learned counsel has specifically contended that statement of one Shri H. Lalruatfela, who was engaged by the petitioners for booking of parcels and his statements were recorded on 3/9/2020 and 8/2/2021 and the same do not provide any information that the goods, in question, were smuggled from Myanmar. Similar is the fate of the statement of one Shri Joseph Lienhmingthang, the Station Master and Commercial Manager in charge (CMI), Railways. Reference has also been made to the statement of the petitioner no. 2 made on 17/9/2020 as per which the goods were procured by him locally and were not smuggled goods.

8. With regard to the show cause notice dtd. 26/2/2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the same contains incorrect facts which are baseless and bogus and accordingly not liable to be sustained. Alle