High Court quashes confiscation order for silver and car under Customs Act, emphasizes lack of evidence

The High Court quashed the order of confiscation of silver and a car, along with the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were transporting silver, intercepted by officers, but the Court found no conclusive proof of intent to smuggle to Bombay. Emphasizing the distinction between preparation and attempt in committing an offense, the Court held the impugned order lacked evidence and misinterpreted the law. The Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the authority acted without jurisdiction. The writ petition was not dismissed solely due to the availability of an alternative remedy, and costs were not awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved: Challenge to order of confiscation of silver and car, imposition of penalty u/s Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:
The petitioners challenged the order of confiscation of silver and an Ambassador car, along with imposition of penalty, by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Orissa. The petitioners were transporting silver in the car, intercepted by officers, leading to seizure. The petitioners contended the silver was intended for melting at Bargarh, not for smuggling to Bombay. The opposite parties alleged the petitioners were preparing to smuggle silver to Bombay without authority. The case involved interpretation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal and reference, but the High Court considered the lack of evidence in the impugned order. The Court held that the movement of silver did not attract penal provisions of the Act as there was no conclusive proof of intent to transport to Bombay. The Court cited legal principles distinguishing between preparation and attempt in committing an offense. The impugned order was quashed as it lacked evidence and was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

The Court emphasized that when facts are undisputed and involve pure interpretation of law, and when the authority acted without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was not dismissed solely on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy. The impugned order was quashed, and no costs were awarded.

---