1978 (11) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of seizure under the Gold Control Act, 1968.
2. Challenge to the authorization issued under Section 58(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968.
3. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India.
4. Allegations of illegal and high-handed actions by the Respondents during search and seizure.
5. Attempt to prevent search and seizure without obtaining an interim injunction.
6. Concealment of arrival in Calcutta by the petitioners.
7. Obstruction and prevention of authorities from executing duties under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
8. Threatening authorities with criminal contempt to delay or prevent execution of search and seizure.
9. Allegations made by petitioners to prejudice the Court.
10. Abuse of the process of the Court.
11. Jurisdiction of the Court to sit on appeal on the acts and decisions of the respondents.
12. Sufficiency of materials for issuance of authorization under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.
13. Jurisdiction of statutory authorities under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act regarding investigation of seized goods and right of possession of petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought to challenge the order of seizure and the authorization under Section 58(2) of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The petitioners also alleged a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the facts of the case were similar to a previous judgment related to the authorization for search and seizure of the petitioners' premises. The petitioners argued that the Respondents acted illegally and high-handedly during the seizure of goods under the Gold Control Act, 1968.

2. The petitioners attempted to prevent the search and seizure without obtaining an interim injunction. The Court observed that the petitioners were aware of the search of their premises and had concealed their arrival in Calcutta. Despite their attempts to prevent the seizure through legal proceedings, no injunction was issued, allowing the authorities to proceed with the search and seizure under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act.

3. The petitioners were accused of obstructing and preventing the authorities from carrying out their duties under the relevant laws. The Court found that the Respondents were justified in executing the authorization for search and seizure under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act. The petitioners' threats of criminal contempt were viewed as an attempt to delay or prevent the execution of the search and seizure.

4. The Court dismissed the allegations made by the petitioners as an attempt to prejudice the Court. It emphasized that there was no substance in the petitioners' contentions and that the Respondents had acted strictly according to the law. The Court concluded that the writ petition was an abuse of the Court's process and that the petitioners had the opportunity to prove their case before the appropriate statutory authorities.

5. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to sit on appeal regarding the acts and decisions of the Respondents. It emphasized that the adequacy and sufficiency of the materials for issuing the authorization under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act were not subject to the Court's inquiry. The Court affirmed that the investigation into the seized goods and the right of possession of the petitioners fell within the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition and the discharge of all interim orders.