9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport as identified in column 1 under serial No.10 read with column 3 of Table 2 of the aforesaid Notification. As such I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Maiti that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. Accordingly, the notice/order of detention dated 5th February, 2024, including the order of seizure cum inventory list dated 6th February, 2024, stand quashed. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are directed to return the goods to the petitioner. The aforesaid order, however, shall not stand in the way of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 from initiating appropriate proceeding against the petitioner by appropriate authority, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. - HON BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Das, Advocate Ms. Kishwar Rahman, Advocate Mr. Shantanu Mitra, Advocate Mr. Indradip Das, Advocate For the Customs : Mr. K. K. Maiti, Advocate Authority Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Prithu Dudharia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the provisions of the said Act, within the jurisdictional area of the said airport. 3. By drawing attention of this Court to the notification dated 24th August, 2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) (Central Board of Excise and Customs), it is submitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, and in suppression of notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 16th September, 2014 and the other relevant notifications as appearing therein had appointed officers mentioned in column (3) of Table 2 of the said notification to be the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs and the officers mentioned in the column (4) of the table 2 thereof, to be Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners of Customs, for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of Table 2. It is submitted that under Table 2 serial no. 10, under the corresponding column nos. (3) and (4) the officers exercising jurisdiction over the areas specified under the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, it is submitted that the original period for making an enquiry/ investigation under Section 110 (2) of the said Act, has not yet expired. This Hon ble Court at this stage in exercise of its powers under judicial review ought not to interfere with the inquiry/ investigation. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by this Hon ble Court in the case of Sheikh Mohammed Sayeed v. Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 121 (Cal). It is next submitted that the judgment delivered by this Hon ble Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (supra) does not assist the petitioner inasmuch as the said judgment was delivered by relying on two notifications which had since, been superseded by a subsequent notification. In the said case, two separate notifications were under consideration. In the present case, there is only one notification which is under consideration. By referring to the notification dated 24th August, 2017 and serial nos. (10) and (11) under column 1 of Table no. 2, it is submitted that although, a jurisdiction has been conferred on the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port, Kolkata and Principal Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... digo Airlines. 8. It is also not in dispute that 200 gunny bags of areca nuts believed to be of foreign origin which had been detained under detention order dated 5th February, 2024, were ultimately seized on 6th February, 2024 by the Preventive Officer. Since, the contention of the parties is with regard to the authority and jurisdiction of the Preventive Officer to assume jurisdiction over an area which falls with the said Airport, it would be relevant to consider the Notification dated 24th August, 2017 which has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, in suppression of the previous notifications on the subject. To appropriately appreciate the area of jurisdiction of the Customs Officer, the relevant part of the notification dated 24th August, 2017, including the part of Table 2, is extracted hereinbelow: G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 77/2014-Customs (N.T.), dated the 16th September, 2014 and No. 78/2014-Customs (N.T.) dated the 16th S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Table 2 under serial no. 11 of the aforesaid Notification, it would transpire that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has been conferred with the jurisdictional area in respect of the whole of the State of West Bengal and Sikkim and Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Similarly, upon perusal of column 3 of Table 2 falling under serial no. 10, it would transpire that Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata has been conferred with the jurisdictional area of the ports of Kolkata and Haldia, Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport, the area under the jurisdiction of Kolkata, Howrah and South Suburban Corporations, so much of the Hooghly river as is downstream of the Northern limit of Kolkata Port and all lands as are within 10 kms., of high water mark at spring tide on either side of the river as also Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Falta Special Economic Zone. Thus, a conjoint reading of column 2 under serial nos. 10 and 11 read with corresponding entry in column 3 of Table 2 of the said notification, it would clearly appear that although, jurisdiction has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l jurisdiction of the State may vest with another authority. 12. Although Mr. Maiti, learned advocate, by placing reliance on the judgement delivered by this Hon ble Court in the case of Sheikh Mohammed Sayeed v. Asstt. Collector of Customs (supra), has contended that this Court ought not to interfere with the investigation at this stage since, the investigation is yet to be completed, I am of the view that since, the respondent No. 5 did not have the jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding including issuance of order of detention and seizure cum inventory list under Section 110 (1) of the said Act, the custom authorities cannot be permitted to proceed with an inquiry/ investigation, the initiation whereof is without authority. All proceedings/steps taken by the custom authorities on the basis thereof are nonest. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid, the question whether by reasons of non-disclosure of the satisfaction that the respondent no.5 had reasons to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation has become academic. 14. Accordingly, the notice/order of detention dated 5th February, 2024, including the order of seizure cum inventory list dated 6th February, 2024, stand qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
