Customs officials lack authority to prevent spouse from transferring property without NOC during investigations

The Bombay HC ruled that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to issue a communication preventing a petitioner from transferring her flat without prior NOC, despite investigations against her husband. The court held that Customs officials have no authority under the Customs Act to proceed against third-party property, including spouses' assets. Even if the husband claimed ownership of the flat, only he could challenge the petitioner's ownership under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, not customs authorities. The communication was issued without legal authority and the petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs regarding the ownership of a flat and the authority to restrict transfer without a 'No Objection' certificate.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Authority of Respondent No. 2 under the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs had no legal authority to issue the communication regarding the petitioner's premises based on an investigation against her husband. The petitioner argued that even if the flat was purchased by her husband, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to consider it as his property and restrict transfer. The petitioner also cited the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, to support her claim.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2 to question ownership:
The respondents argued that the flat was considered the property of the petitioner's husband based on statements made during the investigation. However, the court found that there was no provision under the Customs Act allowing the Commissioner to proceed against the property of a third party like the petitioner. The court also highlighted the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, stating that only the husband could question the petitioner's ownership.

Key Observations and Ruling:
The court ruled that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs lacked authority to issue the communication and had acted without jurisdiction. Citing a decision of the Kerala High Court, the court emphasized that the Customs authority could not question the ownership of the wife based on transactions made by the husband. The judgment allowed the petition, directing the Commissioner to show cause under what authority the communication was issued. The court kept all contentions open regarding the proceedings under the Order-in-Original.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Bombay held that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs acted without jurisdiction in issuing the communication regarding the ownership of the flat. The judgment allowed the petition and directed the Commissioner to justify the issuance of the communication. All other aspects of the case were left open for further proceedings.

---