Customs show cause notice challenge fails as procedural violations lack territorial connection to petitioner's business location

Gauhati HC dismissed a writ petition challenging customs authorities' show cause notice for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner alleged procedural violations including denial of cross-examination rights and seizure under duress. Court held that while Article 226(2) permits HC to exercise jurisdiction when cause of action arises within territory, petitioner's allegations of procedural lapses by customs authorities had no connection to petitioner's business location in Assam. The procedural violations claimed were unrelated to territorial nexus required for jurisdiction. Petition closed for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court are:

- Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 and the Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2025 passed under the Customs Act, 1962.

- Whether the petitioner was denied the reasonable opportunity of hearing, particularly the right to cross-examine co-accused persons and seizure witnesses, in violation of Section 138B of the Customs Act and principles of natural justice.

- Whether the impugned penalty order is arbitrary, vague, excessive, and legally unsustainable due to reliance solely on retracted statements of accused persons without proper verification.

- Preliminary objections raised by the respondent Customs Department regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Customs Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India empowers a High Court to issue writs even if the authority against whom the writ is sought is outside its territorial jurisdiction, provided the cause of action or part thereof arises within its territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that even a small portion of cause of action within the High Court's jurisdiction suffices to confer jurisdiction.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the material facts pleaded by the petitioner to determine if any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. The petitioner's additional affidavit stated that the original transaction and dispatch of the allegedly smuggled gold occurred in Karimganj, Assam; the petitioner's business premises are located there; the search was conducted at Karimganj; the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded at Karimganj; and the smuggling allegations were rooted in Karimganj.

However, the Court found that the seizure of gold took place in West Bengal by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials, the show cause notice was issued by the DRI unit in Kolkata, and the adjudicatory order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Kolkata, West Bengal. The procedural challenge raised by the petitioner related to the conduct of authorities in West Bengal and the legality of the impugned order passed there.

Key evidence and findings: The seizure occurred at Dalkhola Railway Station, West Bengal; the statements of co-accused were recorded by DRI in West Bengal; the impugned show cause notice and order were issued and passed by authorities in West Bengal. The petitioner's residence and business location in Assam and the alleged origin of the smuggled goods in Assam were found to be irrelevant to the procedural challenge regarding the impugned order.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the cause of action for challenging the impugned order and show cause notice is essentially procedural and connected to the actions of authorities in West Bengal. The mere fact that the petitioner resides or carries on business in Assam or that the goods allegedly originated there does not establish a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that since part of the transaction and transportation occurred in Assam, jurisdiction lies with the Gauhati High Court. The respondent contended that all adjudicatory actions were taken in West Bengal, and thus no cause of action arose within Assam. The Court sided with the respondent, emphasizing the nexus requirement between the cause of action and territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that no part of the cause of action relevant to the challenge to the impugned order and show cause notice arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. Hence, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Section 138B of the Customs Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the person against whom an order is passed shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which includes the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements form the basis of the order. Principles of natural justice require a fair hearing and opportunity to test evidence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was based solely on retracted statements of co-accused persons and seizure witnesses, without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them, thereby violating Section 138B and natural justice. The petitioner argued that this procedural lapse rendered the order legally unsustainable.

Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the statements of accused persons were recorded by the DRI and that the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine these witnesses during the adjudication. The petitioner's challenge was focused on this procedural aspect.

Application of law to facts: While the Court acknowledged the importance of the right to cross-examination under Section 138B and natural justice, it found that since the entire adjudicatory process and seizure occurred in West Bengal, the jurisdiction to address such procedural grievances lies with the competent authorities or courts in West Bengal.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner sought intervention by the Gauhati High Court to quash the impugned order on grounds of procedural unfairness. The respondent maintained that the petitioner has alternative remedies, including appeal before the Customs appellate authorities in West Bengal. The Court found no reason to entertain the petition in the absence of territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the procedural challenge due to lack of jurisdiction but acknowledged the procedural issues raised by the petitioner as relevant for consideration by the appropriate forum.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the Writ Petition in View of Alternative Remedy

Relevant legal framework: The Customs Act provides for an appeal mechanism against orders passed by Customs authorities. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy generally bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Customs Act. The Court observed that since the writ petition was closed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to examine the maintainability objection based on alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The Court did not decide on this issue but left it open for the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedies.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India allows a High Court to exercise its power, to issue writs, even if the authority or person against whom the writ is sought is outside its territorial jurisdiction, as long as the cause of action or part of it arises within its territorial jurisdiction."

- "Each and every fact does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within this court's territorial jurisdiction, unless those facts pleaded are such, which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case."

- "The fact that the petitioner is carrying out business at Karimganj, that the allegedly smuggled goods were transported from Karimganj etc have no connection whatsoever with the allegation made by the petitioner that the seizure was illegally done, that the cross-examination was not allowed, that the impugned orders are having no legal standing."

- "Such facts as recorded above, in the opinion of this court, don't give rise to any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate the validity of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 and show cause notice dated 04.08.2023."

- The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate forum under the Customs Act.

---