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.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M.L. Gope, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order of seizure dated 31-08-2017, issued by the Inspector of Customs, L.G.B.I., Airport, Guwahati. The petitioner has also assailed a communication dated 01-09-2017, by which the reasons to believe that the goods seized vide the order dated 31-08-2017 were illegally imported into India through a route other than those specified under Section 7(1) (c) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the violation of the other provisions of the Customs Act, was communicated. It was further communicated that the goods so seized were now mandated to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under:

The petitioner is a jewellery firm operating in Guwahati. A person being the carrier of the petitioner company was proceeding to Calcutta on 26-08-2017, carrying gold and diamond jewelleries of customers of the petitioner Company, meant for repair/cutting/polishing, etc. along with challans and necessary documents.

The CISF personnel attached to LGBI Airport, Guwahati, on checking all jewelleries being carried by the person, detained him on the basis of suspicion and the matter came to be informed to the Customs Officers. It is projected in the writ petition that the carrier had produced all valid documents pertaining to the jewelleries in his possession, barring one kada (armlet), which was worn by the carrier, the hard copy of the challan which was mistakenly left by the carrier in the car. It is projected that the challan pertaining to the said kada (armlet), was subsequently produced through the “whatsapp”. The Custom Officers detained all the jewelleries and ornaments and the Director of the petitioner Company was directed to produce all challans in respect of jewelleries. The Director of the company was, thereafter, required to appear before the Custom Officer, however for the reasons stated in the communication issued in this connection by the Director of the Company, the appearance of the Director before the Custom Officer had not occasioned. The Custom Officer, thereafter vide a communication dated 31.08.2017, summoned the Director of the Company to appear before the designated Officer on 01.09.2017 by invoking the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Before the said Director could appear before the Custom Officers, the Inspector of Customs, LGBI, Airport, Guwahati, proceeded vide seizure memo dated 31.08.2017, to seize the jewellery items which were detained on 26.08.2017, from the carrier of the company. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 01.09.2017, the Inspector of Customs, LGBI, Airport, Guwahati, set out the reasons to believe for seizure of the jewellery items on 31.08.2017.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the issuance of the seizure order dated 31.08.2017, as well as the communication dated 01.09.2017, had instituted the present proceedings.

4. Before proceeding to notice the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it would be required to notice the developments taking place, after filing of the present writ petition.

4.1. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2017, at the motion stage, noticing that the reason to believe for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, was not available on the date the seizu