R.K. Angangbi Singh vs Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive) NER

Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J. (Oral)—The petitioner seeks to maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Order-in-Original No. CCP/NER/10/2016, dated 18-4-2016, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong has ordered absolute confiscation of the articles in question i.e., gold biscuits weighing 4334.79 grams, which were seized in case No. 06/CL/IMP/CUS/HQRS.PREV./SH/2013-14, dated 27-8-2014 under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (''the Act of 1962''). The Commissioner has also ordered confiscation of other articles and has also imposed penalty on the persons found to be in possession of, or dealing with, the gold in question.

Upon taking up this matter, we have queried the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset about the availability of alternative remedy of appeal and as to why this matter be entertained in the writ jurisdiction of this Court?

The learned senior counsel submits that earlier too, the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act of 1962 in Writ Petition No. 344 of 2014 wherein, of course, this Court ultimately declined to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction but then, the petitioner approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 32095 of 2015 that was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 23-11-2015 but with liberty to the petitioner to take up all such grounds that are available to him including the grounds raised in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal. In the aforesaid background, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner had raised the basic questions before the authority concerned as regards the very validity and basis of the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act of 1962; and the authority having not properly examined the questions so raised, the petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court as even otherwise, the remedy of appeal is an onerous one.

We are afraid, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for entertaining this writ petition.

A look at the order impugned makes it clear that the Commissioner has specifically referred to the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and addressed himself to the basic question as to whether there was any justification i.e., reasons to believe with the Custom officers to proceed under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Act of 1962 before effecting seizure under Section 110(1) of the Act of 1962. After examining the material on record, the Commissioner has returned the findings that the Customs (Preventive Officers) had rightly proceeded under Section 110(1) of the Act of 1962. The Commissioner has further analysed the factual aspects before coming to the conclusion that the gold biscuits in question were smuggled into India through a route not specified under Section 7(c) of the Act of 1962 and in contravention of the provisions of Section 111 of the Act of 1962. The Commissioner has also returned the specific findings in relation to the persons concerned on their dealings with the gold in question.

We are not elaborating on the findings returned by the Commissioner for the reason that in our view, the petitioner has not been able to make out a strong case for entertaining this writ petition while bypassing the remedy of appeal; and the matter is proposed to be left open for consideration by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

For the present purpose, suffice it to say that prima facie, the questions raised by the petitioner appear to have been attended at and addressed to by the Commissioner in the order impugned. Moreover, for the present one being essentially a matter of taking a particular view on the evidence and the related material available on record; and for the Commissioner having taken a particular view, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has committed any such jurisdictional error that would call for entertaining the matter in the writ jurisdiction. On merits, as to whether the findings returned by the Commissioner are to be maintained or not, would, of course, be a matter for consideration of the appellate forum.

Hence, exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is declined; and this writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is left open for the petitioner in taking recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Needless to say that upon the petitioner taking recourse to the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, the concerned authority/forum shall be expected to deal with the matter dispassionately and as expeditiously as possible.