1997 (10) TMI 83 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition in the Madras High Court.
2. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies.
3. Absence of notice to the first respondent before passing the impugned order.
4. Merits of the respondents' claims regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition in the Madras High Court:
The learned Single Judge held that the writ petition is maintainable in the Madras High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The television set was purchased in Madras, and the first respondent resided there. However, the appellate court disagreed, stating that the entire cause of action, including the seizure, confiscation, and imposition of penalties, occurred in Ahmedabad. The purchase and dispatch from Madras did not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. The appellate court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, setting aside the Single Judge's view.

2. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies:
The learned Single Judge opined that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under the Customs Act, as the order passed by the second appellant was void ab initio due to the lack of notice to the first respondent. The appellate court, however, did not address this issue in detail, as it had already determined the lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. Absence of notice to the first respondent before passing the impugned order:
The learned Single Judge found that the absence of notice to the first respondent, who claimed ownership of the television set, justified the bypassing of the alternative remedy of appeal. The appellate court did not delve into this issue further, given its decision on the territorial jurisdiction.

4. Merits of the respondents' claims regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods:
The learned Single Judge held that the burden of proof was on the Department to establish that the goods were smuggled, as they were not specified goods under Section 11B or 123 of the Customs Act. The respondents had produced a baggage receipt and an affidavit from the air passenger, which should have sufficed to release the television set. The appellate court did not address the merits of the case, focusing instead on the jurisdictional issue.

Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the writ appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, setting aside the conclusions and observations of the learned Single Judge. The respondents were advised to seek redress in the appropriate court having jurisdiction over Ahmedabad, where the seizure and order of confiscation occurred. The writ appeal was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.