Court sets aside unauthorized seizure of goods, emphasizing lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles.

The court found the seizure of goods unauthorized and without jurisdiction by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) and directed submission of necessary documents for release of goods by the Collector of Customs (Appraising), Calcutta. The court rejected claims of the importing firm being fictitious, noted the availability of the petitioner at the given address, and emphasized the timing of import license submission. The adjudication order was set aside due to violation of natural justice principles and lack of jurisdiction, with the petitioner directed to follow specific procedures for the release of goods.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive)
2. Validity of the seizure of goods
3. Existence and legitimacy of the importing firm
4. Requirement and submission of import license
5. Violation of principles of natural justice
6. Availability of alternative remedy

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive):
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive) in seizing the goods. The court held that the seizure was unauthorized and without jurisdiction, as the appropriate authority for seizing manifested goods was the Collector of Customs (Appraising), Calcutta.

2. Validity of the Seizure of Goods:
The goods were seized before the petitioner could file the Bill of Entry. The court found that the seizure was based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence. The adjudicating authority proceeded on the incorrect footing that the petitioner imported goods to evade customs duty, which was not alleged in the show cause notice.

3. Existence and Legitimacy of the Importing Firm:
The show cause notice alleged that the petitioner's firm was fictitious and not existent at the notified address. However, the adjudication order admitted that the firm existed at a different address. The court found that the petitioner was available at the given address and the notice was served upon him, thus rejecting the claim of the firm being fictitious.

4. Requirement and Submission of Import License:
The petitioner contended that he had the requisite REP License but could not submit it before the goods were seized. The court noted that the import license can be submitted any time before the goods are released by the Customs Authority. The petitioner had the requisite license at the time of importation, and the failure to produce it was due to the premature seizure of goods.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court observed that the adjudication order was passed without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to produce necessary documents. The order was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as the respondents acted on surmise and conjecture without considering relevant materials.

6. Availability of Alternative Remedy:
Although there was an alternative remedy before the Tribunal, the court held that the writ jurisdiction was appropriate in this case due to the apparent illegality and lack of jurisdiction in the adjudication order. The findings were contrary to the evidence on record, making the order perverse and unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The application was allowed, and the order dated 29th December 1986 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to submit the Bill of Entry along with the Bill of Lading and the license to the concerned officer of appraising, Collector of Customs, Calcutta, who was instructed to make the assessment within three days and release the goods upon payment of customs duty and other charges.

---