2024 (6) TMI 720 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area - jurisdiction of concerned Officers who have seized the goods being gold bullions to seize the same, as the Customs House at Strand Road does not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal, under whom the Officers are working - HELD THAT - Though, in this case the petitioner did make any application for release of the goods, there is no application for provisional release in terms of Section 110A of the said Act. The purported tax invoice and supporting documents disclosed herein creates more than an element of suspicion as regards ownership of the petitioner in respect of the goods in question. The petitioner has not been able to establish its right of ownership over the goods and the same appears to be a disputed, however, without going into such an issue at this stage, the order of seizure passed by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive) and the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. No case for interference has been made out. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The jurisdictional issue of challenging the seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area.

Judgment Details:

Jurisdictional Issue:
The petitioner challenged the seizure of gold bullions by Customs Officers outside their jurisdictional area. The Officers did not have the authority to seize the goods as the Customs House location was not under their jurisdiction. The petitioner claimed ownership of the goods supported by a tax invoice. The Government notification specified the jurisdictional areas of Customs Officers. The petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction citing previous judgments. The Customs authorities intercepted individuals with suspected smuggled gold at specific locations within West Bengal. The formalities of seizure were completed at the Customs House in Kolkata. The petitioner failed to establish ownership conclusively, and the authenticity of the tax invoice was questioned. The Court found that the seizure by Customs Officers was within their jurisdiction and dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdictional error. No application for provisional release was made u/s 110A of the Act. The Court held that the seizure orders were valid, and no interference was warranted.

This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in challenging seizures under the Customs Act, emphasizing the authority of Customs Officers within their designated areas.