2023 (6) TMI 863 - HC - Customs

Territorial Jurisdiction of Court - Seizure of goods - shawls contained hair of Tibetan Antelope (Pantholopes Hodgsoni) - prohibited goods or not - jurisdiction lies before the forum/courts at New Delhi or before the courts/forum in State/U.T. of J K. HELD THAT - There is force in the submission of respondents 1 to 4 that cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi and not State/UT of J K, so it is the courts at Delhi where the petitioner can approach with his plea. If petitioner has any grievance vis- -vis show cause notice, he has a right to contest impugned show cause notice before Commissioner of Customs (Export) New Delhi at the time of its adjudication and that apart petitioner has also an opportunity to file an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs under Section 129 of the Customs Act 1962 before the Appellate Tribunal - it would have been apt for petitioner to, instead of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, approach appropriate Court/forum, in whose jurisdiction consignment/goods have been seized at New Delhi, show cause notice issued at New Delhi and remedy is available under Customs Act, 1962. It may be mentioned here that the act of respondents in seizing consignment/goods took place in Delhi, followed by other events including issuance of show cause notice etc., so it is the courts/forums at Delhi where the petitioner can lay his claim or raise his grievances. The instant writ petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the cause of action arising in New Delhi for the seized goods.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Issue 1: Jurisdictional Challenge
The show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs in New Delhi for the seized goods, consisting of Pashmina Embroidered Ladies Shawls, suspected to contain Shahtoosh. The Regional Deputy Director of Wildlife Crime Control Bureau confirmed the presence of Tibetan Antelope hair in the shawls, leading to their seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that part of the cause of action arose in Jammu and Kashmir as the goods were dispatched from Srinagar. However, the court held that the act against which relief was sought occurred in Delhi, thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court under Article 226.

Issue 2: Maintainability of Writ Petition
The respondents contended that the cause of action primarily arose in Delhi, where the goods were seized and the show cause notice was issued. The court emphasized that the petitioner should address grievances related to the seized goods in the courts or forums in Delhi, where remedies under the Customs Act, 1962 are available. Citing precedents, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the events following the seizure, including the issuance of notices, occurred in Delhi, thus warranting the petitioner to seek redressal in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Separate Judgment:
In a separate judgment concerning OWP No. 1110/2015, the petitioner sought to quash communications and proceedings initiated against them in Delhi under the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. The court reiterated that since the consignment was seized in Delhi and subsequent actions were taken there, it was more suitable for the petitioner to approach the courts or forums in Delhi. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and any interim directions were vacated.