2020 (9) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods along with vehicle - 304 bags, containing 20,520.00 kgs . of betel nuts - It is submitted that the goods and the truck are lying under the open sky, hence are likely to decay and perish, hence it would be appropriate that the same are released for which the petitioners are ready to approach the respondent Custom authorities and furnish cash and bank guarantee - Case of Revenue is that present writ petition is also not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner no. 2, who has claimed for release of the seized goods, since the said Biren Sah has never filed any application before the respondent authorities claiming ownership or seeking release of the seized betel nuts. HELD THAT - This Court finds that since there is no disagreement amongst the parties regarding release of the goods/truck in question, it is deemed fit and proper to grant liberty to the owners of the goods/truck in question to approach the respondent Custom authorities by filing appropriate application for provisional release whereupon the respondent Custom authorities shall release the same in accordance with their scheme/circular and upon the owners of the goods/truck furnishing adequate security, cash and bank guarantee. Whether the initiation of the seizure/ confiscation proceedings is or is not ultra vires the provisions contained in the Custom Act, 1962? - HELD THAT - This Court finds that allegations and counter allegations have been levelled from both the sides and in fact the respondent Custom authorities, in their counter affidavit filed before this Court, have raised the issue regarding the very maintainability of the writ petition in its present form and have alleged non-cooperation by the petitioners during the course of investigation as also have placed materials on record to show that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, thus disentitling them from any relief under the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, this Court is not going into the merit of the imputations since the same would prejudice the case of the petitioners herein and it would suffice to state that since the investigation is going on and is in a nascent stage, any interference in the seizure proceedings would have the effect of hampering and stifling proper investigation and adjudication. Thus, this Court is of the view that since the material on record prima facie indicates suspicious and dubious transaction as also a serious challenge has been made by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, it would be proper not to delve on the merits of the case since the same may cause prejudice to the owners of the goods/vehicle, hence it is deemed fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues raised herein, in the present writ petition, before the respondent Custom authorities at an appropriate stage. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Release of seized goods and truck; Challenge to seizure and confiscation proceedings under Custom Act, 1962; Maintainability of the writ petition; Non-cooperation of petitioners during investigation; Compliance with Custom Department's scheme for release of seized goods/vehicle; Adjudication of the initiation of seizure and confiscation proceedings; Prejudice to petitioners due to interference in ongoing investigation; Timely completion of investigation and adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:

1. Release of Seized Goods and Truck:
The petitioner sought the release of 304 bags of betel nuts and the truck seized by Custom authorities. The petitioner argued that the goods were at risk of decay and requested their release upon providing cash and bank guarantee. The Court granted liberty to approach Custom authorities for provisional release upon furnishing adequate security, cash, and bank guarantee, with a directive for prompt release within 24 hours of compliance.

2. Challenge to Seizure and Confiscation Proceedings:
The petitioner contested the initiation of seizure and confiscation proceedings under the Custom Act, 1962, claiming them to be ultra vires. The respondent authorities raised objections to the maintainability of the writ petition due to lack of cooperation from the petitioners during the investigation. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the ongoing investigation and directed the petitioners to raise their concerns before Custom authorities for adjudication.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent authorities challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, citing lack of cooperation from the petitioners and discrepancies in ownership claims. The Court acknowledged the objections raised but refrained from detailed scrutiny to prevent interference in the investigation process. The petitioners were granted liberty to address all issues before Custom authorities, with a directive for expeditious consideration and resolution.

4. Compliance with Custom Department's Scheme:
The Additional Solicitor General highlighted the Custom Department's scheme for releasing seized goods/vehicle, emphasizing the requirement for owners to approach authorities with necessary security and guarantees. The Court endorsed this approach, emphasizing compliance with the scheme for release while allowing the petitioners to raise concerns during the adjudication process.

5. Prejudice to Petitioners Due to Interference in Ongoing Investigation:
To prevent prejudice to the petitioners and ensure a fair investigation, the Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed unhindered and directed the Custom authorities to complete the investigation and adjudication proceedings within six months.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the release of seized goods/vehicle upon compliance with Custom Department's requirements, while allowing the petitioners to raise their concerns during the ongoing investigation and adjudication process. The Court prioritized the completion of the investigation within a specified timeline to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the matter.