Customs officers have valid jurisdiction to seize goods at domestic cargo complex under Section 110

HC upheld customs seizure of 200 bags containing five metric tonnes of areca nuts. The court ruled that preventive customs officers had valid jurisdiction to seize goods at the domestic cargo complex under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. Despite summons to suppliers being returned undelivered with "addressee not known," the seizure was deemed lawful. The court emphasized that preventive officers have overall jurisdiction to prevent smuggling and that administrative notifications should be interpreted to give effect to their purpose. The original order setting aside the seizure was reversed and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport.
2. Legality of the seizure of goods by the Preventive Officer.
3. Validity of the writ petition challenging the seizure list and summons.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal:
The main contention was whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal had jurisdiction over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport. The writ petitioner argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction, citing Notification No. 82/2017-Customs (N.T) dated August 24, 2017, which delineates the jurisdiction of customs officers. According to the notification, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata has jurisdiction over the International Airport, while the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has jurisdiction over the rest of the State of West Bengal, Sikkim, and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The court, however, concluded that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal, including the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport. The court emphasized that the term "whole" in the notification implies complete jurisdiction over the entire state, thereby not excluding the airport from the Preventive Commissioner's authority. The interpretation was aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the Customs Act and preventing smuggling activities.

Legality of the Seizure of Goods:
The writ petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal as there was no prima facie evidence to believe that the goods were of foreign origin and illegally imported. The customs authorities, however, argued that the seizure was based on a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled, as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the Preventive Officer had directed the Cargo Manager to call the consignee, who neither appeared nor claimed the goods. Consequently, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Act on the belief that they were illegally imported.

The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Gitamalji and Indu Ramchandra vs. Union of India, which established that the "reasonable belief" of the seizing officer is not a matter for the court to sit in appeal. The court concluded that the seizure was valid as it was based on a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled.

Validity of the Writ Petition:
The revenue argued that the writ petition was premature as the investigation under Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act was still ongoing. The court agreed, noting that the writ petitioner had not exhausted all available remedies before approaching the court. The court also observed that the writ petition should have been rejected at the threshold as it challenged the seizure list and summons, which are part of the ongoing investigation.

The court held that the Preventive Officer had jurisdiction and the seizure was valid. Consequently, the order passed in the writ petition was set aside, and the customs department was directed to continue with the investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal had jurisdiction over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport, and the seizure of goods was valid. The writ petition challenging the seizure list and summons was deemed premature and was consequently dismissed. The customs department was directed to proceed with the investigation.

---