2022 (9) TMI 1595 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - pre-condition of having reasons to belief - Seizure of areca nuts u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Jurisdiction to issue SCN 124 of the Act - goods (areca nuts) were illegally procured from Myanmar. or not. Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - In the cases of Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal Anr. 1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT as well as Indru Ramchand Bharvani Ors. 1988 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Supreme Court was in seisin of matters wherein the interpretation of the term reasonable belief had arisen, and it was held that ' There this Court observed whether or not the office concerned had seized the article under the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled goods, is not a question on which the Court can sit on appeal. The circumstances under which the officer concerned entertains reasonable belief, have to be judged from his experienced eye who is well equipped to interpret the suspicious circumstances and to form a reasonable belief.' Pre-condition of having reasons to belief - HELD THAT - The competence of the Officer in question has not been questioned and the principal issue is that before the search and the impugned decision is taken, the concerned Officer did not have materials to construe reasons to believe regarding commission of an offence. Such defence is apparently fallacious inasmuch, as this Court is of the prima facie view that materials were there before the competent authority which were considered before coming to the conclusion of reasons to believe. Such satisfaction is obviously a subjective one and cannot be interfered with in a routine manner. In a given case, however, if such powers were mechanically exercised without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances, the action would be without jurisdiction which is, however, not there in the instant case. This Court has seen that not only there were materials before the authority, such materials are also found to be relevant and cogent. It is a settled law that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially the Certiorari jurisdiction, this Court is only required to see the fact as to whether the authority, in question, has taken into consideration the relevant materials and has cited reason for the same and once a prima facie view is taken on the availability of those preconditions, this Court may not go into the sufficiency of the reasons. Jurisdiction to issue SCN 124 of the Act - HELD THAT - An the subject of interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, this Court is of the view that in most of the cases, such interference has been deprecated whereby enquiries have been stalled and investigation retarded which was initiated to find the actual facts. Therefore, only when the Court is of a firm view that there is no bona fide in the act of issuing show cause notice or the same is bad for want of jurisdiction, writ petition should not be entertained in a routine manner. This Court is of the view that present is not a fit case for invoking the extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of areca nuts u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the show cause notice u/s 124 of the Act.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies.

Summary:

1. Seizure of Areca Nuts u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner challenged the seizure of areca nuts and the corresponding Panchnama dated 29.08.2020 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the seizure was made without credible information and outside any Custom area as defined u/s 2(11) of the Act. It was contended that the seizure lacked objective material and was based on irrelevant considerations. The petitioner also alleged violations of Instruction No. 01/2017-Customs dated 08.02.2017, claiming the seizure was haphazard and prejudicial.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice u/s 124 of the Act:
The petitioner also challenged the show cause notice dated 26.02.2021 u/s 124 of the Act, claiming it contained incorrect and baseless facts. Allegations were made about the lack of specific details for confiscation under Sections 111(b)/111(d)/111(e) of the Act. The petitioner contended that neither Section 112 nor Section 14 of the Act was applicable. Additionally, the petitioners' application for provisional release of the goods was not adjudicated, despite a reminder dated 09.09.2020.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Due to the Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The respondents questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that it was premature since the show cause notice had not been responded to. They asserted that the authorities had not yet concluded the petitioner's complicity in the offense. The respondents provided materials, including an Intelligence Officer's Note and photographs, to justify the seizure and show cause notice, arguing that these constituted sufficient grounds for reasonable belief.

Court's Findings:
The Court held that the scope of challenging a show cause notice is limited and should be based on specific conditions such as lack of jurisdiction, competence, bona fide, or violation of natural justice principles. The Court found that the materials presented by the respondents were sufficient to form a reasonable belief for the seizure and issuance of the show cause notice. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to pre-empt the authorities from taking lawful action, especially when alternative remedies are available.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed on technical grounds, with the Court noting that the observations on merits were tentative and would not prejudice either party. The Court reiterated that interference at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice should be rare and not routine, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.