2018 (9) TMI 328 - HC - Customs

Immediate suspension of Container Freight Station - Illegal removal of seized/confiscated goods - Confiscation of Red Sanders and One Time Seal affixed - later on, the One time seal was tampered and the confiscated red sanders were found missing. Held that - The impugned order of suspension specified that the custodian has failed to ensure the safety and security of the goods which were entrusted to his custody. Other than this, no other serious allegation is made against him. Admittedly, the very same petitioner was certified to be the best Container Freight Station for the past two consecutive years. There are no materials to point out that he is involved, much less, actively involved in the removal of the confiscated goods. It is not clear as to when the goods confiscated were removed illegally within these four years. Unless and until the real culprit is caught, it will not come to light as to who are all involved in this criminal offence and as to whether the petitioner has any role in such illegality. There can be a suspicion, till such time, against the Container Freight Station also - In the absence of prima facie materials to indicate that the petitioner is actively involved in the illegal removal of the seized goods in connivance with the staff or others, or hoodwinking the Customs officials, they shall be construed to be innocent. The impugned order does not disclose as to how the continuance of petitioner will prejudice the proceedings initiated and lacks further details as to the entrustment other seized goods with the petitioner hampering the public interest. The order is in the nature of fixing the petitioner for the lapse with a view to save the skin of the officials of the respondent. The order of interim stay granted by this Court, vide order dated 09.03.2018, is made absolute till the disposal of the proceedings initiated by the respondents in SCN No.01/2018 dated 24.07.2018, on certain conditions - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the suspension of the Container Freight Station by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is justified?
2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to continue operations pending the outcome of the proceedings initiated against them?
3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable without exhausting the alternative remedy?

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Container Freight Station, was entrusted with a container bearing seized goods, which were later found missing during an inspection. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence suspended the custodianship of the petitioner, suspecting illegal removal of goods. The petitioner argued lack of prima facie evidence linking them to the offense and cited their track record as a certified station. The court noted the absence of serious allegations against the petitioner and highlighted their diligence in security measures, ultimately ruling the suspension unjustified due to lack of evidence of active involvement in the offense.

2. The court considered the value of the missing goods and the petitioner's negligence in ensuring their safety. Despite the seriousness of the offense, the court emphasized the lack of evidence implicating the petitioner directly. The court ordered stringent conditions, including a bank guarantee, cooperation with the ongoing proceedings, and completion of the enquiry within a specified timeframe. The court balanced the interests of justice and convenience by allowing the petitioner to continue operations subject to the imposed conditions.

3. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable without exhausting the alternative remedy of seeking review by the competent authority. However, the court referenced a Supreme Court ruling where relief was granted without exhausting alternative remedies in cases of unjust termination. The court considered the seriousness of the offense and the national interest involved in the missing goods, emphasizing the need for protective measures. Despite the absence of clear evidence linking the petitioner to the offense, the court imposed stringent conditions to address the situation effectively.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning in reaching its decision.