2023 (10) TMI 764 - HC - Customs

Plaintiffs win ownership of goods in Schedules A, B, C; court orders return under Sea Customs Act, Section 80 C.P.C.

The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, affirming their ownership of the goods listed in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C'. The court issued a declaratory ... Validity of search and seizure - Ownership of goods when goods were found in possession of different person - Proof of smuggling of goods - Prayer for declaration, delivery of the goods, damages along with other reliefs - Maintainability of suit under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 - HELD THAT:- The authorities under the Sea Customs Act 1878 are not vested with jurisdiction to decide on this issue or pass declaratory order as to the title or ownership of the confiscated goods. The Plaintiffs were the third parties to whom show-cause notices were not issued. The articles were seized assuming that the Defendant no. 6 illegally imported these articles from foreign countries infringing the provisions of the Sea Customs Act 1878. Neither is there any provision nor is there any machinery under the Act to decide upon the issues. The same considerations apply in cases of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act and Income Tax Act. Although both the statutes are special statues providing with machineries for enforcement of special provisions consideration and adjudication of declaration of title is not barred by any of the statues. Whether the original Plaintiffs were the owner of the articles and goods set out respectively in Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plaint? - whether the goods wherein possession of Plaintiff no. 1 and the Plaintiff no. 2 at the time of seizure? - HELD THAT:- Law is well-settled. Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for burden of proof and on whom such burden of proof lies. Section 102 states that burden of proof should in a proceeding lies on that person who will fail if no evidence is at all given on either side. Section 106 is also relevant to consider in this context. According to the Section 106 when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person burden of proof of that fact is upon him. The statute never states that any specific or particular kind of evidence is to be tendered to discharge burden of proof - Once the burden of proof is discharged by the Plaintiffs to adduce evidence to substantiate their claims, onus of proof shifts on the Defendants. DW1 Shankar Ghosh stated in evidence that diamond, watches and gold ornaments were suspected to be smuggled and were in the possession of late Ramnath Bajoria. DW 1 was a member of a search party recovery were made from safe key kept in the bedroom of the original Defendant no. 6. Nothing is there in the evidence of DW. 1 to show that the articles in question whereof foreign origin. DW.1 stated in evidence that it was suspected that articles were smuggled and that it was believed that the articles were smuggled without indicating anything else or adducing any evidence that these articles were either imported or not available in the country. There is no concrete or cogent evidence adduced on behalf of the Defendants’ witnessed to rebut the evidences so adduced by the Plaintiffs witnesses disproving their evidences. It is admitted that in the search list the remarks column were penned through - Issues decided in favour of the Plaintiff. Propriety of search and seizure as well as prohibitory order - HELD THAT:- Sea Customs Act, 1878 as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for search and seizure and procedure to be followed therein. Civil Court in exercise of ordinary jurisdiction cannot decide on the propriety of search and seizure; civil court in exercise of ordinary civil jurisdiction is neither authorized nor vested with such power. Similarly, the prohibitory order was passed in exercise of power conferred under the then existing Income Tax Act. Vires could have been challenged in appropriate forum. But exercising ordinary jurisdiction, this Court cannot decide on the same. Therefore, this Court desists from deciding the issues. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory decree - the instant suit succeeds. Issues Involved:1. Ownership of goods.2. Legality of search and seizure.3. Protests against seizure.4. Wrongful refusal to release goods.5. Deprivation of goods.6. Valuation of goods.7. Damages suffered.8. Validity of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.9. Suit maintainability under the Sea Customs Act.10. Suit maintainability against certain defendants.11. Validity of prohibitory order.12. Suit barred by specific statutory provisions.13. Reliefs entitled to plaintiffs.Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:Ownership of Goods:The court concluded that the original Plaintiffs were the owners of the articles set out in Schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' of the plaint. The Plaintiffs successfully discharged their burden of proof through consistent and convincing oral testimonies, which were corroborative and cogent. The Defendants failed to provide concrete evidence to rebut the Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, Issue no. 1(a) and 1(b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Legality of Search and Seizure:The court refrained from deciding on the propriety of the search and seizure (Issue no. 2) and the prohibitory order (Issue no. 11), stating that the civil court in its ordinary jurisdiction cannot decide on these matters, which should be addressed in appropriate forums.Protests Against Seizure:The court found that the original Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 protested against the seizure of the goods. The testimonies of the Plaintiffs' witnesses were consistent and uncontradicted, establishing that the Plaintiffs protested the seizure. Thus, Issue no. 3(a) and (b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Wrongful Refusal to Release Goods:The court found no evidence of malice or wrongful refusal by the Defendants to release the goods. The Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Defendants acted with an oblique or indirect motive. Therefore, Issue no. 4 and 5 were decided against the Plaintiffs.Deprivation of Goods:The court concluded that the Plaintiffs were wrongfully deprived of their goods, as the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were smuggled. Thus, the Plaintiffs were entitled to the return of their goods. Issue no. 5 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Valuation of Goods:Issue no. 6(a) and (b) were not pressed by the Plaintiffs' counsel and thus were not considered by the court.Damages Suffered:The court found no evidence that the Plaintiffs suffered any damages due to the actions of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims of damages with concrete evidence. Therefore, Issue no. 7 was decided against the Plaintiffs.Validity of Notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.:The court found that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid and sufficient. The notices were properly served, and the suit was filed after the expiry of the requisite period. Thus, Issue no. 8(a) and (b) were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Suit Maintainability under the Sea Customs Act:The court held that the suit was maintainable as the Sea Customs Act, 1878, did not provide machinery for adjudicating the title of the properties. The civil court has jurisdiction to decide on the ownership of the properties. Thus, Issue no. 9 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Suit Maintainability Against Certain Defendants:The court found that since the acts of the Defendants were done in the exercise of official duty, there could not be personal liability. Thus, Issue no. 10 was decided accordingly.Validity of Prohibitory Order:As previously mentioned, the court refrained from deciding on the validity of the prohibitory order (Issue no. 11) due to jurisdictional limitations.Suit Barred by Specific Statutory Provisions:The court found that the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act and the Indian Income Tax Act, as these statutes did not preclude adjudication of title by a civil court. Thus, Issue no. 12 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Reliefs Entitled to Plaintiffs:The Plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory decree that they were the owners of the articles mentioned in Schedule 'A', 'B', and 'C' and a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to hand over the possession of these articles to the legal heirs of the original Plaintiffs. Thus, Issue no. 13 was decided in favor of the Plaintiffs.Conclusion:The suit was disposed of with the Plaintiffs succeeding in their claims for ownership and possession of the goods. The court ordered that the Plaintiffs get a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction for the delivery of the items mentioned in the schedules to the legal heirs of the original Plaintiffs.