9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing boats, namely, S.V. Pankhde and S.V. Usmani, on June 29, 1982. A seizure Panchnama of the same was effected on the same day. The boats were seized on the allegation that they were used for transporting contraband goods from another vessel, namely, M.S.V. Sagar Laxmi and that the boats were liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. It appears that the statements of the opponents-plaintiffs were recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Act" for short) on the same day. On August 13, 1982 both the opponents filed two separate civil suits being Civil Suits Nos. 744 and 745 of 1982 in the court of Civil Judge (SD), Jamnagar, and prayed for a declaration that the action of seizure taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fishing boats in question were involved in transportation of smuggled goods and therefore, according to the trial court, the seizure was clearly prima facie baseless. The learned appellate Judge also held that he did not find any good reason to differ from the view taken by the trial court. In this connection it was submitted that the lower courts have overlooked the points raised in the written reply submitted by the Department. In the written reply in paragraph 4, it is stated in clear terms as follows : "The real facts are that fishing boat was seized as it was used for transporting contraband goods from M.S.V. Sagar Laxmi. This fact is admitted and proved from statements recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962. Boat is lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not approach the Customs Authorities with a prayer that the fishing boats be released on their execution of the surety bonds and PR bonds. They rushed to the court and on August 30, 1982, that is, immediately after the expiration of two months, filed aforesaid civil suits. A copy of the plaint of Civil Suits No. 745 of 1982 has been placed on record wherein it is not even averred that the Customs Officers had no reason to believe that the vessels in question were used as a means of transport for carrying the smuggled goods. Thus there is not even a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have not made out even a prima facie case in the plaint itself, it becomes clear that both the courts below have exceeded their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle on a reasonable belief that the goods are contraband goods and the vehicle in question is used as a means of conveyance in transportation of such contraband goods. There are administrative instructions to release the goods or vehicle even on the execution of the bond by the party concerned pending the investigation and inquiry by the Officers of the Customs Department. It provides for adjudication and after the adjudication when an under is passed, it can be challenged in appeal and it can further be challenged by way of revision to the Central Board of Revenue and again by way of revision to the Central Government. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the Customs Act is a complete Code in itself and it creates a new liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. It is only in the exceptional cases narrated by the Supreme Court and referred to hereinabove, that the Civil Courts will have jurisdiction to entertain suits against certain action of the Officers of the Customs Department. It should further be realised that the investigation into the cases of smuggling and such other nefarious activities is not an easy task. Sometimes the Customs Officers have to act at the risk of their lives too. As such activities are carried on clandestinely and with utmost secrecy, normally the evidence will not be easily available. That is the reason why that the Legislature has given six months time to the Customs Authorities to retain the contraband goods and/or vehicles. This period may be further extended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Additional Central Government Standing Counsel) while in practice at that time certain revision applications involving similar questions have been dealt with by me and therefore in the interest of justice, the cases, should be heard by some other Court. Below these applications that is only thumb impression which is not even identified by anyone. Shri P.N. Ravals, counsel for the respondents filed his appearance later on. About these applications I had put questions to Shri P.N. Raval, the counsel appearing for the respondents, and asked him as to whether he wishes that on this ground the matter should be heard by some other Court and he stated that he had no objection whatsoever if the matters were heard and decided by me. Therefore I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
