2024 (4) TMI 704 - HC - Customs

Territorial jurisdiction of Court - Confiscation of gold - levy of penalty on the petitioner - burden lies on the respondents to establish that the seized gold was smuggled in nature and there was violation of the Customs Act 1962 by the petitioner or not - seeking release of seized gold - HELD THAT - This Court observes that the preliminary objection of the respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court deserves acceptance and the same is hereby accepted because after a perusal of the record as a whole it is clear that the entire proceedings including confiscation recording of the statements hearing of the case etc. were conducted at Shillong (Meghalaya) and that the gold biscuits i.e. the articles in question never reached the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Therefore only on count of the fact that the residence of the petitioner is situated in the State of Rajasthan the territorial jurisdiction does not lie with this Court. While making such observations this Court is conscious of the fact that the present matter is quite old but the same also cannot persuade this Court to hear and decide the case on its own merits for lack of jurisdiction and that in reiteration not even a fraction of the cause of action arose in the State of Rajasthan so as to persuade this Court to make the effective adjudication of the case. Moreover no interim order is operating in the present case. This Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of orders for confiscation of gold and levy of penalty, jurisdiction of the court, reliance on statements of co-accused, legality of seizure under the Customs Act, and territorial jurisdiction.

Quashing of Orders:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders for confiscation of gold and penalty imposed by the authorities. The petitioner argued that the burden was on the respondents to prove that the seized gold was smuggled and that there was a violation of the Customs Act. The petitioner also requested the release of the seized gold and other appropriate reliefs.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner claimed that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the court as the gold in question was purchased in Bombay, brought to Jodhpur, and then supplied to Shillong. The petitioner argued that the statements were recorded in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and therefore, the court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Reliance on Co-Accused Statements:
The petitioner contended that undue reliance was placed on statements given by co-accused persons, which were allegedly recorded under duress and coercion. The petitioner clarified discrepancies in the purchase of gold biscuits and argued that the statements of co-accused were retracted at the earliest opportunity.

Legality of Seizure under Customs Act:
The petitioner argued that the adjudicating officer failed to offer the option of payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of the gold biscuits, as mandated by Section 125 of the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed that the gold biscuits were not prohibited goods and that appropriate relief should have been granted.

Territorial Jurisdiction:
The respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the entire proceedings, including confiscation and hearings, took place in Shillong. The gold biscuits were confiscated by DRI Officers in Guwahati, and no part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan.

Conclusion:
The court observed that the entire proceedings were conducted in Shillong, and the gold biscuits never reached Rajasthan. Due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The court stated that the petitioner should seek remedy before the appropriate jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to pursue the case in the court of competent jurisdiction within the limitation period.