2024 (8) TMI 1069 - HC - Customs

Seeking for setting aside the inventory cum seizure list as also the summons - seeking direction upon the appellant to unconditionally release the goods being 200 bags containing five metric tonnes of areca nuts which were seized by the customs authorities under the impugned seizure memo - HELD THAT - Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) states that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods. The Hon ble Supreme Court in INDRU RAMCHAND BHARVANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1988 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT , held that the conclusions arrived at by the fact-finding bodies, the tribunal or the statutory authorities, on the facts found that the cumulative effect or pre-ponderance of evidence cannot be interfered where the fact-finding body or authority has acted reasonably upon the view which can be taken by any reasonable man, courts will be reluctant to interfere in such a situation. As has been seen from the impugned order, affidavits were not called for from the department, nonetheless in the appeal the authority has stated that the two summons were sent to the suppliers/traders at Imphal, Manipur from whom the writ petitioner is said to have purchased the goods and both the summons were returned undelivered with the postal endorsement addressee not known . Whether the appellant authority namely the authority of the Preventive Wing of the customs department had jurisdiction to seize the goods from the domestic cargo complex in the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport? - HELD THAT - There is no aspect of customs functioning with which the preventive service is not directly or indirectly associated. The mannual states that the preventive officer of customs is the first to greet any visitor arriving in India and the last he has to see departure from India and in the process, he has to shoulder dual responsibility. On the one hand, he has conduct himself to the visitor as an ambassador of India. On the other, being a soldier in the economic front, he has to ensure the proper observance of the laws of the land by the visitor. Further a separate sub-heading has been devoted for Proper officers under the Customs Act, 1962 and a tabulated format has been given giving the relevant sections of the Customs Act and the subject to be dealt with by the officer in brief - the preventive officer has overall jurisdiction to discharge various duties and responsibilities with the main function of the preventing, smuggling of dutiable, prohibited and restricted goods. The cardinal principle of interpretation would be to read the notification as such and the interpretation if to be given should be to give effect to the notification in its letter and spirit and not to thawart the purpose for which it has being issued. In any event, the notification issued in exercise of powers under Section 4 (1) of the Act is for administrative convenience and the court should seldom step into the realm of administration and make a hair-splitting exercise when the scope of the notification is called in question. Thus, it is held that the seizure by the Preventive Department of the Customs is valid and the seizure is not vitiated for the reasons contended by the writ petitioner and consequently the order passed in the writ petition is set aside - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport.
2. Legality of the seizure of goods by the Preventive Officer.
3. Validity of the writ petition challenging the seizure list and summons.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal:
The main contention was whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal had jurisdiction over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport. The writ petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction, citing Notification No. 82/2017-Customs (N.T) dated August 24, 2017, which delineates the jurisdiction of customs officers. According to the notification, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata has jurisdiction over the International Airport, while the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has jurisdiction over the rest of the State of West Bengal, Sikkim, and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The court, however, concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal, including the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport. The court emphasized that the term "whole" in the notification implies complete jurisdiction over the entire state, thereby not excluding the airport from the Preventive Commissioner's authority. The interpretation was aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the Customs Act and preventing smuggling activities.

Legality of the Seizure of Goods:
The writ petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal as there was no prima facie evidence to believe that the goods were of foreign origin and illegally imported. The customs authorities, however, argued that the seizure was based on a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the Preventive Officer had directed the Cargo Manager to call the consignee, who neither appeared nor claimed the goods. Consequently, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Act on the belief that they were illegally imported.

The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Gitamalji and Indu Ramchandra vs. Union of India, which established that the "reasonable belief" of the seizing officer is not a matter for the court to sit in appeal. The court concluded that the seizure was valid as it was based on a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled.

Validity of the Writ Petition:
The revenue argued that the writ petition was premature as the investigation under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act was still ongoing. The court agreed, noting that the writ petitioner had not exhausted all available remedies before approaching the court. The court also observed that the writ petition should have been rejected at the threshold as it challenged the seizure list and summons, which are part of the ongoing investigation.

The court held that the Preventive Officer had jurisdiction and the seizure was valid. Consequently, the order passed in the writ petition was set aside, and the customs department was directed to continue with the investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal had jurisdiction over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport, and the seizure of goods was valid. The writ petition challenging the seizure list and summons was deemed premature and was consequently dismissed. The customs department was directed to proceed with the investigation.