2024 (5) TMI 739 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of Preventive officer to initiate any proceeding including proceeding u/s 110 (1) - Show Cause Notice for seized goods - issuance of inventory/seizure - bags of areca nuts believed to be of foreign origin which had been detained - non-disclosure of the satisfaction - HELD THAT - Since, the contention of the parties is with regard to the authority and jurisdiction of the Preventive Officer to assume jurisdiction over an area which falls with the said Airport, it would be relevant to consider the Notification dated 24th August, 2017 which has been issued in exercise of power conferred u/s 4 (1) of the said Act, in suppression of the previous notifications on the subject. The very nature of making separate entries for the Port and Airport areas, makes it explicitly clear that sole jurisdiction has been conferred on the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata to decide all violations in respect of, inter alia, Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport as identified in column 1 under serial No.10 read with column 3 of Table 2 of the aforesaid Notification. As such I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Maiti that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. Accordingly, the notice/order of detention dated 5th February, 2024, including the order of seizure cum inventory list dated 6th February, 2024, stand quashed. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are directed to return the goods to the petitioner. The aforesaid order, however, shall not stand in the way of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 from initiating appropriate proceeding against the petitioner by appropriate authority, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Preventive Officer to initiate proceedings.
2. Validity of the detention and seizure orders.
3. Authority of the customs officers under the relevant notifications.
4. The court's power to interfere with ongoing investigations.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Preventive Officer to initiate proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods by the Preventive Officer of the Customs Authority, arguing that the officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, including detention and seizure, at the Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport. The petitioner contended that the inventory cum seizure list dated 6th February 2024 was not issued in accordance with Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it did not record the satisfaction of the proper officer that the goods were liable to confiscation.

2. Validity of the detention and seizure orders:
The court examined whether the Preventive Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the detention and seizure orders. It was found that the goods arrived at the airport on 5th February 2024, and the Preventive Officer detained the goods on the same day, suspecting them to be of foreign origin. The detention notice was handed over to the Cargo Manager of Indigo Airlines, and the goods were seized on 6th February 2024.

3. Authority of the customs officers under the relevant notifications:
The court referred to the notification dated 24th August 2017, issued u/s 4(1) of the Customs Act, which delineates the jurisdiction of customs officers. The notification specifies that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata, have jurisdiction over the Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, has jurisdiction over the entire state of West Bengal. The court concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port) and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex) have exclusive jurisdiction over the airport area, and the Preventive Officer did not have concurrent jurisdiction.

4. The court's power to interfere with ongoing investigations:
The court held that since the Preventive Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, all actions taken by the customs authorities based on the detention and seizure orders were non est. The court quashed the detention order dated 5th February 2024 and the seizure cum inventory list dated 6th February 2024, directing the customs authorities to return the goods to the petitioner. The court clarified that this order would not prevent the customs authorities from initiating appropriate proceedings by the competent authority in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of, and the court refused the respondents' request to stay the operation of the judgment/order directing the return of the goods to the petitioner.