2024 (2) TMI 32 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Jurisdiction - Ethanol - goods fell under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act or not, so that the State Excise Authorities could exercise any jurisdiction? - HELD THAT - The concerned Excise officials involved in the seizure in question, appears to have not acted bonafide and as the law would mandate them to act. Prima facie they appear to have abused the powers vested in them under the Bombay Prohibition Act, in taking such brazen illegal action against the petitioners, contrary to the orders passed by this Court in permitting clearance and trading in the goods by declaring that the goods in question do not fall under the purview of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The petitioners stand maligned in the eyes of the public, apart from damaging of the petitioners business interest and the public image the petitioner would wield. Such a situation as brought about by the illegal seizure at the hands of the Excise officers would amount to not only a gross illegality but bring about a situation of absolute lawlessness in exercise of solemn public duties by such officials. Once there were orders passed by this Court and the same were binding, it was not permissible for the State Excise officers that without verification of all materials, they could resort to such drastic actions as assailed by the petitioners, merely for the reason that they have been conferred powers under the Bombay Prohibition Act. When law confers such drastic powers on the officers, it would also cast an onerous duty, for such powers to be exercised with great caution and responsibility, and only in public interest - in the facts of the case there can be no reason for the Excise officials to resort to the impugned actions, except to cater to the private interest of third parties. Any public servant vested with such serious powers as conferred on them in law, cannot be expected to abuse such powers. Thus, when it was a clear case that the goods in question were not prohibited goods and which were being dealt by the petitioners lawfully, the Excise Officials disregarding all canons of law, could not have painted the petitioners as some criminals. The goods shall be released without the department waiting for a copy of this order, as the officer concerned is present before the Court - The substantive prayers in the petition would not require any further adjudication in view of the statement as made on behalf of the respondents in regard to release of the petitioners goods. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the seizure of goods by State Excise Authorities, challenges the legality of the seizure, and examines the involvement of intervenors in supporting the seizure.

Seizure of Goods:
The petition challenges the seizure of goods cleared from JNPT by State Excise Authorities, despite previous court orders stating the goods did not fall under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The petitioners' goods, namely Ethanol, were seized on 11 December 2023, leading to reputational damage and market standing concerns.

Involvement of Intervenors:
Intervenors, representing MSB Chemical Limited and Laboratory Solutions India, supported the seizure, claiming the petitioners' imports were affecting their business interests. The sudden appearance of intervenors and their contentions raised suspicions of ulterior motives behind the seizure, potentially influenced by the petitioners' competitors.

Judicial Findings and Directions:
The Court found the seizure to be illegal and unauthorized, disregarding previous court orders permitting the goods' clearance. It criticized the Excise Officials for acting in bad faith, potentially at the behest of private interests. The Court directed the release of the seized goods and ordered an inquiry by the Additional Chief Secretary into the officials' conduct and the involvement of private parties. The inquiry aims to restore trust in the rule of law and ensure accountability for the officials' actions. The Court emphasized the need for officials to act lawfully and responsibly, highlighting the serious consequences of abusing their powers.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes by disposing of the petition, pending compliance with the release of the goods and scheduling further proceedings for January 2024. The Court's decision to investigate the officials' conduct and potential disciplinary actions underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights against abuse of power.