2023 (10) TMI 542 - HC - Customs

Territorial jurisdiction of courts - principle of Forum Conveniens - Seizure of goods - Supply of Pashmina Embroidered Ladies Shawls - prohibited goods or not - Contention that, cause of action had started at Srinagar only and the Notices/Communications have been made/received by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar - HELD THAT - Merely receiving of shawls from its suppliers by the appellant-petitioner, without any descriptive details in its petitions, cannot be said that the part of the cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was for the appellant-petitioner, to at least plead and also urge at the time of arguments before the learned Writ Court or even before this Bench substantially, as to wherefrom it had received supplies of the consignment of shawls manufactured from the prohibited yarn, so that the learned Writ Court or this Court in appeal could have said that in view of commission of offences in J K, the appellant s cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so as to entertain the writ petitions for their disposal on merits. Merely pleading that the consignment was booked from Srinagar by the appellant-petitioner and the Notice/Communications from the respondents were received by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar, does not disclose any cause of action having arisen at Srinagar so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the basis of part of cause of action, exercising writ jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of any specific pleadings in the writ petitions as well as memoranda of appeals, it cannot be said that any part of cause of action had accrued to the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar. The learned Writ Court has rightly held that the seizure of the shawls containing prohibited material had taken place in Delhi, therefore, Delhi Courts/Fora shall be having jurisdiction in the matter and not this High Court. The impugned common judgment passed by the Writ Court is maintained and upheld.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of Pashmina Shawls containing Shahtoosh.
2. Issuance of Show Cause Notice.
3. Jurisdiction of Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

Summary:

1. Seizure of Pashmina Shawls containing Shahtoosh:
A consignment of Pashmina Embroidered Ladies Shawls was presented for clearance for export to Switzerland. Upon examination by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, it was observed that 20 out of 33 shawls appeared to contain Shahtoosh, a prohibited material. The shawls were sent for forensic testing, which confirmed the presence of Tibetan Antelope hair. Consequently, the shawls were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Issuance of Show Cause Notice:
A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, to the petitioner who had dispatched the consignment from Srinagar. The petitioner challenged this notice in OWP No. 251/2015. Additionally, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau requested the CBI to investigate, leading to the registration of an FIR under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner also challenged these actions in OWP No. 1110/2015.

3. Jurisdiction of Jammu & Kashmir High Court:
The Writ Court dismissed both petitions, stating that since the seizure occurred in Delhi, the appropriate forum for the petitioner would be the courts in Delhi. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose in Srinagar where the consignment was booked, and hence the Jammu & Kashmir High Court had jurisdiction. However, the court held that merely booking the consignment in Srinagar and receiving communications there did not constitute a significant part of the cause of action. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in "Lt. Col. Khajuri Singh Vs. Union of India" and "Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra," which emphasized that the place of the act against which relief is sought determines jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the Writ Court was upheld, maintaining that the Delhi courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The court emphasized the need for specific pleadings to establish jurisdiction based on the cause of action.