2016 (3) TMI 772 - HC - Customs

Writ petition - Movement of gold smuggled allegedly Writ petition - Seeking to define the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of Commissionerates or Commissioners - Seizure of smuggled gold - Held that - the two persons were travelling by Howrah-CST Duronto Express. That was a train scheduled to arrive at Mumbai and both passengers alleged to be involved in transporting the goods were travelling by this train. When this train reached Igatpuri station, that a watch was kept on their movement. That is how these two persons got down when the train just passed Shahad station. The officers followed them and arrested them with the alleged contraband. The seizure was effected and all that has taken place within the Thane district. It also reveals that the persons arrested and travelling by train were produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Therefore, the Commissionerate at Mumbai/Thane has to adjudicate the matter. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
Challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding jurisdiction of Competent Authority.

Analysis:
The Petitioner, a resident of Pune, challenged the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority in West Bengal to adjudicate the proceedings related to alleged smuggling of gold intercepted in Thane district. The Petitioner argued that the proceedings should be decided by the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs in Mumbai or Thane instead. The investigation revealed that the gold passed through Bagdogra Airport, leading to the Competent Authority being identified as the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs at Bagdogra. However, the interception of the gold and subsequent events occurred in Thane district, with the persons involved being produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai.

The High Court, after examining the Affidavit in Reply and the events surrounding the interception and arrest of the individuals transporting the alleged contraband, concluded that the Competent Authority in Mumbai/Thane should adjudicate the matter. The Court emphasized that the territorial limits of jurisdiction need not be defined in this case, and the larger controversy need not be addressed. The Court clarified that the order directing the Competent Authority in Mumbai/Thane to adjudicate the matter was specific to this case and should not be generalized to benefit other parties. The Court disposed of the Petition by allowing it and directing the Competent Authority in Mumbai/Thane to pass a reasoned order after hearing all the Petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.