9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear that the entire proceedings, including confiscation, recording of the statements, hearing of the case etc. were conducted at Shillong (Meghalaya), and that, the gold biscuits i.e. the articles in question, never reached the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, only on count of the fact that the residence of the petitioner is situated in the State of Rajasthan, the territorial jurisdiction does not lie with this Court. While making such observations, this Court is conscious of the fact that the present matter is quite old, but the same also cannot persuade this Court to hear and decide the case on its own merits, for lack of jurisdiction, and that, in reiteration, not even a fraction of the cause of action arose in the Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition may be kindly awarded." 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had bought eleven gold biscuits from M/s Sanghvi Enterprises, Mumbai on 27.01.1996 whereafter the said gold biscuits were sent to Shillong for the purpose of sale to Mr. G.C. Goyal in the hands of Mr. Abdul Rahim. However, Mr. G.C. Goyal and Sanjay Goyal were found to be out of station thus Mr. Abdul Rahim decided to return back but on the way back he was intercepted by D.R.I. Officers, Guwahati whereby the gold biscuits were seized under violation of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1962'). 2.1. During the period of custody, Mr. Abdul Rahim was interrogated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the petitioner had clarified regarding the purchase of gold biscuits from M/s. Sanghvi Enterprises, Mumbai wherein by mistake the mother of the petitioner had given invoice of another purchase of gold biscuits from M/s. Kishanlal & Sons to Mr. Abdul Rahim and thus at the time of being intercepted by the DRI Officers, Guwahati, Mr. Abdul Rahim was not carrying the correct invoice. 3.2. In furtherance, an affidavit of the proprietor of M/s Sanghvi Enterprises was also filed, to confirm the above said transaction and such affidavit was never controverted or rebutted, furthermore, there are no cogent material to support the findings arrived by the respondents. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the present matter lies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, Hyderabad on 08.11.2023); (d) Balwant Raj Soni vs. Commissioner of Customs, (Customs Appeal No. 75414/2022, decided by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata on 18.12.2023); (e) Commissioner of Customs vs. Bajrang Ingole, (Customs Appeal No. 75026/2021, decided by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata on 03.11.2023). (f) Union of India vs. Dhanak M. Ramji, (Writ Petition No. 1700/2009, decided by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 01.09.2009; (g) Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. CWP No. 12001/2020 decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 17.02.2022); and (h) Commissioner of Customs vs. Mehboob, (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5640/2019 decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 22.02.2022). 4. On the other han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 108 of Act of 1962 are not equivalent to statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. and thus such statements are material piece of evidence collected by the Customs Officer. 4.4. In furtherance concurring views had been given by both the Customs Commissioner and the CEGAT, New Delhi. 4.5. Learned Counsel had placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Abdul Hussain Saifddin Hamid vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 15689/2000, decided on 11.12.2020); (b) Romesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeals Nos. 27, 45, 46 and 47 of 1968, decided on 18.10.1968) by the Hon'ble Apex Court; (c) Naresh J. Sukhawani vs. Union of India (Spl. Leave Petn. (c) No. 23708 of 1995, decided no 06.11.199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gled by the involved persons and penalty was accordingly imposed; aggrieved by this order the petitioner went before the CEGAT, New Delhi (appellate authority) however vide order dated 08.05.2001 the order passed by Customs Commissioner was upheld and even the rectification application came to be rejected on 12.02.2002 whereafter the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 8. This Court thus observes that the preliminary objection of the respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court deserves acceptance and the same is hereby accepted, because after a perusal of the record as a whole, it is clear that the entire proceedings, including confiscation, recording of the statements, hearing of the case etc. were conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
