9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re lists in respect of goods seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), both dated 2nd February, 2024. 2. The petitioner raises a jurisdictional issue, it contends that the seizure had been effected by two separate seizure memos, one by the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and the other by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive), DPU, Barasat Customs Division, Kolkata-700 001 at Customs House, Strand Road on 2nd February, 2024. According to the petitioner, the concerned Officers who have seized the goods being "gold bullions" did not have the jurisdiction to seize the same as the Customs House at Strand Road does not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 thereof, to be Additional Commissioners 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 Columns (3) and (4) the Officers exercising jurisdiction over the areas specified under the corresponding Column (2) have been identified. They are (i) Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, (ii) Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata and, under column no. (4) - Additional Commissioners, or Joint Commissioners, or Deputy Commissioners, or Assistant Commissioners of Customs working under the control of - (i) Principal Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Md. Ahmed Ali Khan, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 858 as also on an unreported judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Bangari Bhola v. Union of India & Ors., in WPO 334 of 2024, on 7th May, 2024. In any event it is submitted that the petitioner had also made a representation for release of the aforesaid goods. Despite such application being made, no steps have been taken by the respondents to release the said goods. The above would show that the conduct of the respondents do not appear to be bona fide. 5. Mr. Dey, learned Advocate representing the Customs authorities has placed c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional area of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. By referring to the provisions of Section 110 of the said Act, it is submitted that the Officers concerned at Haroa Bridge and Haroa Bazar, at the time of interception and recovery had reasons to believe that the said goods are liable for confiscation under the said Act and for reasons as aforesaid, had brought the abovenamed persons at the Customs Office to complete the formalities of seizure. Simply because the formalities as regards the seizure were completed at Strand Road, the same does not ouster the jurisdiction of the Superintendent or the Inspector of Customs (Preventive) fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs (Preventive) on 2nd February, 2024 at the Customs House at Strand Road, Kolkata. However, a perusal of the Panchnama along with the seizure memos would demonstrate that the two persons, namely, Safiqul Molla and Abu Khair Gazi had been intercepted at Haroa Bridge and at Haroa Bazar respectively, at North 24 Parganas, within the State of West Bengal. The custody of the goods in question was taken at Haroa Bridge and at Haroa Bazar within the State of West Bengal though, the formalities in connection with seizure thereof appears to have been concluded at the Customs House, Kolkata. Although, Mr. Bose, by placing reliance on an unreported judgment delivered in the case of Bangari Bhola (supra) and the Judgment delivered in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seizure were completed at the Head office of the respondents. The matter has travelled further. Memorandum of arrest had also been issued and on the basis thereof criminal proceedings had been initiated and the detenues have since been granted bail. 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. I am afraid that the petitioner has not been able to establish its right of ownership over the goods and the same appears to be a dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
