2014 (8) TMI 1145 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of application filed under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act - Held that - since the Learned MM has passed the impugned order dated 1-8-2013 following the decision of this Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State 2013 (2) TMI 812 - DELHI HIGH COURT in which the decision of Learned Single Judge in Department of Customs v. Parvinder Kaur 2000 (8) TMI 1119 - DELHI HIGH COURT has been discussed and distinguished there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 1-8-2013 which is in consonance with the legal position laid down by this Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. State. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act - Maintainability before the Court - Conflict of views between Coordinate Benches.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Learned MM under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, seeking verification and certification of the Panchnama of seized goods. The Learned MM dismissed the application citing a previous judgment of the High Court, stating that the function of certifying the inventory of seized goods is an executive function to be performed by an Executive Magistrate, not a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the decision relied upon by the Learned MM was contrary to another judgment of the High Court on the same issue. The petitioner contended that the Learned MM should have followed the earlier decision or referred the matter to a larger Bench instead of relying on a judgment from the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner further claimed that the two Coordinate Benches had taken different views on the matter.

The Learned MM rejected the petitioner's arguments, stating that there was no merit in the contention that different views were taken by the Coordinate Benches. The Learned MM emphasized that the decision in question was in line with the legal position established by the High Court in a previous case. The Learned MM noted that the issue had been thoroughly examined in the previous judgment and concluded that the task of certifying the inventory of seized goods falls under the executive function, not a judicial one. Therefore, the Learned MM upheld the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner's application.

In the final analysis, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Learned MM. The High Court found that since the impugned order was consistent with the legal position established in a previous case, there was no basis to interfere. The High Court reiterated that the task of certifying the correctness of the inventory of seized goods is an executive function to be carried out by an Executive Magistrate. The High Court upheld the decision of the Learned MM, emphasizing that the previous judgment provided the correct legal interpretation, and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.