TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsignment was Rs. 34,16,765/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid goods were dispatched from Imphal to Kolkata under cover of separate e-weigh bills all, dated 5th February, 2024 and were booked on an Indigo Airlines Flight from Imphal to Kolkata. Incidentally, upon arrival of the said goods at the Netaji Subash Chandra International Airport, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "said airport") on 5th February, 2024, when the petitioner had attempted to collect the same from the domestic cargo complex of the said airport on 7th February, 2024, he had come to learn that the goods had been detained on the ground that the same had been allegedly imported into India, in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023. This was followed by seizure of goods by issuance notice/inventory of seizure dated 6th February, 2024 issued by the Preventive Officer of the Customs Authority. 2. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the inventory cum seizure list dated 6th Febru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubhash Chandra International Airport, the area under the jurisdiction of Kolkata, Howrah and South Suburban Corporations, so much of the Hooghly river as is downstream of the Northern limit of Kolkata Port, and all lands as are within 10 kilometers of high water mark at spring tide on either side of the river; (ii) The Andaman and Nicobar Islands; (iii) FALTA Special Economic Zone to be the area of jurisdiction of the aforesaid officers. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the Preventive Officer did not have the jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding including proceeding under Section 110 (1) of the said Act. Since, proceeding initiated by the Preventive Officer is without jurisdiction, inter alia, including passing off orders of detention and issuance of inventory/seizure list by the preventive officer the same are non est and cannot be acted upon. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Md. Ahmed Ali Khan, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 858. In any event it is submitted that the petitioner had also made representation for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yet to be passed. As such judgment relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and do not come in aid of the petitioner. The writ petition is premature and should be dismissed. 6. Mr. Dudhoria, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of Union of India. 7. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Since, a jurisdictional issue has been raised in the present writ petition and since, the learned advocates for the parties have admitted that such issue can be decided on the basis of the materials on record, I have proceeded to hear out the writ petition without calling for affidavits. I find that the short question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Preventive Officer at the first instance had the jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding, inter alia, including issuance of an order of detention and seizure under Section 110 of the said Act. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be relevant to note that the goods in question had arrived at the said Airport, via Indigo flight bearing no. 6E6716 on 5th February, 2024. It is not in dispute that the Preventive Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) the officers mentioned in column (3) of the Table-2 below to be the Principal Commissioners of Customs or Commissioners of Customs and the officers mentioned in column (4) of the said Table-2 thereof to be the Additional Commissioners of Customs or Joint Commissioners of Customs or Deputy Commissioners of Customs or Assistant Commissioners of Customs, for the areas mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table-2. Sl.No. Area Designation of Officer (1) (2) (3) (4) ... ... ... ... (10) (i) Ports of Kolkata and Haldia, Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport, the area under the jurisdiction of Kolkata, Howrah and south Suburban Corporations, so much of the Hooghly river as is downstream of the Northern limit of Kolkata Port, and all lands as are within 10 kilometres of high water mark at spring tide on either side of the river; (ii) The Andaman and Nicobar Islands; (iii) FALTA Special Economic Zone. (i) Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata; (ii) Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. Additional Commissioners, or Joint Commissioners, or Deputy Commissioners, or Assistan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gations or violation of the Act arising out of those areas and are the sole authorities to decide such issue. The above would become clear from the language employed in the notification which delineates the jurisdiction of the officers of the customs. The very nature of making separate entries for the Port and Airport areas, makes it explicitly clear that sole jurisdiction has been conferred on the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata to decide all violations in respect of, inter alia, Netaji Subhash Chandra International Airport as identified in column 1 under serial No.10 read with column 3 of Table 2 of the aforesaid Notification. As such I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Maiti that Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata. 11. The aforesaid also finds support from the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Md. Ahmed Ali Khan (supra). It is true that ....