TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Act Prevails Over CrPC in Goods Disposal</h1> <h3>Amit Kumar Gupta Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)</h3> Amit Kumar Gupta Versus Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under Section 451 CrPC for disposal of goods seized under the Customs Act.2. Applicability of the Customs Act as a self-contained code.3. Validity of the disposal of perishable goods as per the Disposal Manual 2019.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court under Section 451 CrPC:The petitioner contended that the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) did not possess the jurisdiction to pass an order for the disposal of imported goods under Section 451 of the CrPC. The petitioner argued that the Customs Act is a self-contained code with its own special powers, procedures, and regulations, making the provisions of the CrPC inapplicable. The petitioner cited Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400 to distinguish between 'inquiry' and 'investigation' under CrPC, arguing that Section 451 CrPC could only be invoked during a trial or pending inquiry. The petitioner also referenced Directorate of Revenue Intelligence V. M/s PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, (Crl. MC No. 4316/2016), where it was held that goods confiscated under the Customs Act cannot be disposed of under the CrPC.2. Applicability of the Customs Act as a Self-Contained Code:The Customs Act provides a comprehensive framework governing the import and export of goods, aiming to curb smuggling and prevent the proliferation of a parallel economy. The Act includes provisions for arrest, investigation, inspection, seizure, confiscation, adjudication, and imposition of penalties. The court referenced CBI V. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 9 SCC 735, which held that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), being a special legislation, was a self-contained code, and its provisions would prevail over the CrPC. Similarly, the Customs Act, being a special legislation, has its own comprehensive provisions, making the CrPC inapplicable for matters covered under the Customs Act.3. Validity of the Disposal of Perishable Goods as per the Disposal Manual 2019:The respondent argued that the disposal of the goods was done in accordance with the Disposal Manual 2019, which mandates the procedure for disposal of perishable goods. The Manual categorizes goods that need immediate disposal due to their short shelf-life. The court noted that the Disposal Manual 2019 lists items such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and other perishable goods that require immediate disposal after seizure. The court found that the disposal manual does not indicate that Section 451 CrPC can be invoked for the disposal of goods confiscated under the Customs Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Customs Act, being a special legislation, provides a complete code for the search, seizure, confiscation, and adjudication of contraband goods. The provisions of the CrPC, including Section 451, do not apply to the disposal of goods seized under the Customs Act. The court relied on the judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence V. M/s PRK Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and found no reason to differ from its view. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the order dated 16.02.2020, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, was quashed and set aside.
TaxTMI 